0% found this document useful (0 votes)

44 views291 pages

Criminology

The document is a comprehensive overview of criminology, covering crime definitions, measurement, theories, types, and control methods. It includes chapters on the etiology and epidemiology of crime, various criminological theories, and specific crime types, as well as a discussion on the importance of studying crime. Additionally, it provides insights into how crime is defined and measured, emphasizing the social construction of criminal definitions.

Uploaded by

arenay709

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

44 views291 pages

Criminology

Uploaded by

arenay709

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

CRIMINOLOGY

Terance D. Miethe
Table of Contents

Crime Definitions and Measurement:

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study of Crime...................................... 1

Chapter 2: Definitions of Crime .................................................................. 4
Chapter 3: The Development and Functions of Criminal Laws ............... 11
Chapter 4: Crime and the Structure of Society ....................................... 14
Chapter 5: Crime Statistics (Sources/Methods of Counting Crime) ........ 19
Chapter 6: Self-Reports of Offending ....................................................... 31
Chapter 7: National Victimization Surveys ............................................... 35
Chapter 8: Crime Trends: Summary of Findings across Methods ............ 45

Criminological Theories:

Chapter 9: Overview of Theories of Criminal Behavior ............................ 48

Chapter 10: The Principles of Classical Criminology ................................... 53
Chapter 11: Positivistic Criminology (Lombroso, Ferri, Garofalo) .............. 57
Chapter 12: Biological Theories of Criminal Propensity ............................. 62
Chapter 13: Psychological Theories............................................................ 68
Chapter 14: Sociological Theories (Social Structural Theories) ................. 78
Chapter 15: Sociological Theories (Social Process Theories) ...................... 90
Chapter 16: Sociological Theories (Social Conflict Theories) ...................... 98
Chapter 17: Sociological Theories (Crime Events & Crime Opportunity) . 103

Crime Types and Crime Control:

Chapter 18: Crime Typologies .................................................................. 108

Chapter 19: Violent Crime (Homicide and Aggravated Assaults) ............. 119
Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing……………………………………………148
Chapter 21: Rape and Other Sex Offenses .............................................. .182
Chapter 22: Personal and Institutional Robbery ...................................... 200
Chapter 23: Residential and Non-Residential Burglary ............................ 214
Chapter 24: Motor Vehicle Theft ............................................................. 226
Chapter 25: White Collar Crime (Occupational/Organizational Crime) ... 235
Chapter 26: Organized Crime ................................................................... 248
Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment ..................................... 256
Chapter 28: Capital Punishment............................................................... 275

References: Selective Bibliography .......................................................... 286

i
List of Videos on Criminology Lecture Series CD and Website

Crim1. Why Study Crime?

Crim2. Scientific Method
Crim3. Rating Crime Seriousness
Crim4. Public Harm and Victimless Crime
Crim5. Is Anything Inherently Wrong?
Crim6. Why Dead Letter Laws Remain?
Crim7. Hyperlexis
Crim8. Statistical Lies in Official Crime Data
Crim9. NIBRS Data
Crim10. Interpreting NCVS Data

Crim11. Lifetime Victimization Risks

Crim12. Ranking the Most Dangerous States
Crim13. What is Theory?
Crim14. Is Crime a Rational or Irrational Choice?
Crim15. Scientific Method of Positivism
Crim16. Phrenology and Reading the Skull
Crim17. Profiling Criminal Faces/Body Types?
Crim18. Profiling Persisters and Crime Desisters
Crim19. GIS Maps of High Crime Areas
Crim20. Neutralization Techniques

Crim21. Do Labels Matter?

Crim22. Media Coverage and Crime
Crim23. Technological Changes and Crime Opportunities
Crim24. Criminal Identities of White Collar Offenders
Crim25. Time Lag in Acts of Self-Defense
Crim26. Medical Advances and Homicide Rates
Crim27. International Homicide Rates
Crim28. Homicide as Self-Help
Crim29. Victim Precipitation
Crim30. Lunar Cycle and Crime

Crim31. Guns and Crime

Crim32. International Comparisons (Rape Rates)
Crim33. Does Pornography Cause Sex Crimes?
Crim34. Rape Case Processing
Crim35. Rape Shield Laws (Effectiveness?)
Crim36. Why Don’t People Report Robbery to the Police?
ii
Crim37. ATM/Cash Machines
Crim38. The Hoteling Rule
Crim39. (no video)
Crim40. Do Dogs Deter Burglars?

Crim41. Situational Crime Prevention (SCP)

Crim42. Group Context for Joyriding
Crim43. Why Particular Cars Stolen?
Crim44. The Ford Pinto Case
Crim45. Prison Sentences for White Collar Offenders
Crim46. Financial Sanctions (Effectiveness?)
Crim47. Media Images of Organized Crime
Crim48. Legalization and Organized Crime Markets.
Crim49. Deterrence and Other Explanations for Decreasing Crime
Crim50. Retribution

Crim51. Most Punitive Countries

Crim52. Death Penalty and the Brutalization Effect

iii
Criminology Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1:
Introduction to the Study of Crime

Objectives:

• Know the 3 general areas covered within Criminology.

• Understand the difference between the etiology and epidemiology of

crime.

• Identify the multiple reasons why it is important to study crime.

Criminology is the scientific approach to the study of criminal behavior. It covers

the general areas of:

1. law making (e.g., why are particular types of harmful behavior considered
criminal acts, but other types of harms are not illegal? differences in definitions
of crime across jurisdictions).

2. law enforcement (e.g., the responses to crime

by police, prosecutors, judges, and other officials
within the criminal justice system).

3. law breaking (e.g., the extent, causes,

consequences, characteristics,
motivations/justifications for criminal behavior
and its social and spatial distribution).

Within the study of law breaking behavior,

criminologists are concerned with two fundamental questions: (1) the etiology of
crime and (2) the epidemiology of crime. The etiology of crime refers to the
“causes” of criminal behavior. These causes may be biological (e.g., testosterone,
chemical imbalances), psychological (e.g., low impulse control, inner conflicts,
personality disorders), or sociological (e.g., environmental/economic conditions,
social bonds, cultural differences).

The epidemiology of crime involves its social, spatial, and temporal distribution.
Examples of social differences include differences in the distribution of crime based on
social attributes like age, sex, race, education, and income. Spatial differences include
variation in crime rates across nations, regions within countries, rural/urban differences,
and “hot spots” for crimes within particular geographic areas. The temporal distribution
of crime involves variation over time (e.g., is the crime rate decreasing or increasing
over time?), seasonality effects (e.g., is crime more common in summer months than
other times of the year), and differences by day of the week (e.g., weekends vs.
weekdays) and time of the day (e.g., are particular types of crime more common in
daytime or evening hours?).

Why Study Crime? Watch Video Crim2:

Watch Video Crim1: Scientific Method

It is important to note that good criminological theories must account for both the
etiology of crime (i.e., the particular risk factors that lead to the onset or persistence of
criminal behavior) and the epidemiology of crime (i.e., its social, spatial, and temporal
distribution).

Application Questions:

1. What component of Criminology (law making, law enforcement, law

breaking) is most likely to address questions about the etiology and
epidemiology of crime?

2. National crime data compiled by the FBI indicates that persons

arrested for violent crimes are more prevalent among 18-24 year old,
Black males who live in urban areas. Based on these factors
associated with the epidemiology of violence, briefly describe a
possible etiological theory that would explain this social distribution
of violence.

3. As mentioned in a video lecture in this chapter, one of the primary

reasons that we study crime is because of its personal relevance.
Many Americans are either victimized by serious crime at some time
in their lifetime, have loved ones who have been victimized by
violence, or are employed in some way in the crime control business.

Go on the Internet and search for information on people’s risks of

victimization. Good keywords in this Internet search involve terms
like “lifetime risks of crime” or “victimization risks”. Once you find this
information, briefly summarize a couple differences in the
epidemiology of crime/victimization for different social groups or
locations.

Chapter 2:
Definitions of Crime

Objectives:

• Know the differences between the 3 primary ways of defining crime:

normative/moral, legal, and labeling definitions.

• Identify the types of societies in which a normative definition of crime is

the most useful.

• Identify the key elements and conditions associated with a legal

definition of crime.

• Explain how definitions of crime are socially constructed under a

labeling definition of crime.

When asked “what is crime”, most people have no trouble rattling off a list of
particular offenses like murder, rape, robbery and car theft. For criminologists,
however, this question of “what is crime” is not so easily answered because
there are at least 3 distinct ways of defining crime. These 3 different definitions
of crime involve (1) a normative/moral definition, (2) a legal/legalistic definition,
and (3) a labeling/interactionist definition. These differences are described in all
criminology textbooks and summarized below.

Normative/Moral Definitions

Norms are shared views of what someone ought or ought not do as members of
a society. As “shared” assessments of thoughts and behavior, normative
definitions assume that there is widespread consensus among members of a
society about what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior--for example, this
idea of normative consensus would suggest that everyone in a society agrees
that (1) murder is wrong and those who commit this act should be punished
severely by death or life imprisonment and (2) calling someone an “idiot” is not
very nice but nearly everyone would agree that it shouldn’t be against the law.

Criminal law under a normative definition reflects the consensus of values about
the social harm of various types of conduct--conduct that is viewed as repugnant
to all members of a society is collectively condemned through the criminal law.

Under a normative definition of crime, criminal behavior represents conduct that

violates public standards of morality. From this perspective, some conduct is
given more severe punishment than other behavior because it is more morally
reprehensible to the society. Notice how the punishments for the following
criminal acts would seem to represent differences in public perceptions of the
moral gravity of these offenses:

Offense Punishment
Murder Death, Life Imprisonment
Rape 10-20 Years, Life
Burglary 1 to 5 Years
Jaywalking $50 to $200 Fine

Normative/moral definitions of conduct are often the basis for criminal

definitions in small, agrarian and/or tribal societies. In these pre-industrial
societies, there is often a high level of agreement about the seriousness of
particular offenses and the punishment for them. Violations of cherished
customs and taboos about sex, marriage, and property are severely punished in
these societies by banishment, death and/or “sanctioning in kind” (e.g., cutting
off the hand of thieves).

I
n
Watch Video Crim3:
h
i Rating Crime Seriousness
g
h
l

In highly diverse and industrialized societies, a normative definition of crime is

more difficult to apply because of greater cultural diversity and the lack of
normative consensus about what should constitute criminal behavior in these
types of societies. In fact, previous research on public attitudes about crime in
the U.S. and other industrialized societies consistently finds that there is little
agreement on the seriousness of particular crimes among different groups in
these societies. For example, almost all Americans believe that murder and rape
are horrible acts that should be severely punished, but there is widespread
disagreement on the seriousness of various types of occupational crimes (e.g.,

employee theft, income tax evasion, consumer fraud) and “victimless” crimes
(e.g., gambling, drug use, prostitution).

Legal/Legalistic Definitions

A legal definition of crime simply assumes that crime is a violation of legal

rules. This legalistic approach does not question the legitimacy of the law-making
process that generated these laws or whether the conduct that is being
regulated by these laws should be against the law. Instead, crime is just any
conduct that is defined as against the law, presumably because it involves more
public harm than other conduct.

From a legal/legalistic perspective, crime is law-violating behavior that involves a

physical act (actus reus), a mental state (mens rea), and concurrence (the union
of the physical and mental elements).

For example, under a legal definition, burglary is the unlawful entry into a
structure with criminal intent to steal, whereas trespass is the same behavior
without any additional intent beyond entry. Some of the additional conditions
often associated with a legal definition of crime include the following:

1. The act must involve conscious, voluntary, public harm. People who
commit unconscious or involuntary acts (because of being illegally
drugged, under duress, and/or insanity) are not criminally
responsible. Notice that it is difficult to defend criminal laws that prohibit
many “victimless crimes” (e.g., smoking marijuana, prostitution),
attempted suicide, and/or motorcycle helmet laws on the basis of their
“public” harm.

2. The offender must have criminal intent. There are different types of
criminal intent including acting “purposefully” (acts done with specific
intent), “knowingly”, “recklessly” (conscious risk taking), and
“negligently” (unconscious risk taking—e.g., you don’t know what you are
doing is wrong but any ordinarily reasonable person should know this is
wrong). Acts done with specific intent (purposefully) are given the most
severe punishment and those done “negligently” the least severe
punishment. You should also be aware that just because someone acts
knowingly (e.g., providing aid to a friend who is a terrorist) doesn’t
necessarily mean it is done for some nefarious specific intent (e.g., with
intent to overthrow the government).

3. The law must specify a punishment for any criminal act and the act must
be illegal at the time it was committed.

Watch Video Crim4:

Public Harm and Victimless Crimes

Police departments in the U.S. and other countries use a legal definition of crime
when compiling and counting crime data. If uniform definitions are used across
jurisdictions and over time, it is possible to make comparisons about whether
crime rates have changed over time and whether some cities/states have higher
crime rates for particular offenses than others.

Unfortunately, as you will find out shortly, police departments often vary in how
they count crimes under a legal definition. An exclusively legal definition of crime
also doesn’t address the important question about why some acts with serious
social harm (e.g., tobacco/alcohol production/consumption) are considered legal
for adults, but other types of substances (e.g., marijuana) which may have less
social harm are considered illegal in most jurisdictions. This idea of the “social
construction” of criminal definitions is the basis of a labeling definition of crime.

Labeling/Interactionist Definitions

Both normative and legal definitions of crime focus on the behavioral

dimensions of crime. From the normative perspective, crime is behavior that
violates shared public standards of morality. A legal definition considers crime as
behavior that violates legal rules. In sharp contrast, a labeling definition of crime
assumes that no behavior is inherently criminal. Instead, labeling theorists
believe that definitions of crime are socially constructed by those in power that
have the ability to get their wishes and desires codified in law. A labeling
definition of crime derives from a conflict theory of social order--this theory
assumes that the criminal law is an instrument used by the ruling class and
powerful groups to protect their interests and privileges. From a labeling or
interactionist perspective, conduct that is labeled as “crime” is socially
constructed by those who have the ability to legitimize their own actions and
criminalize the same behavior by those who lack this power.

Watch Video Crim5:

Is Anything Inherently Wrong?

The labeling definition of crime and its presumption that crime definitions are
socially constructed explains many of the apparent discrepancies in what types
of behaviors are considered illegal and legal. For example, labeling theorists
would argue that marijuana is an illegal drug but tobacco is legal because the
tobacco industry has been able to get its product legitimized. The tobacco
industry has also played a role in demonizing marijuana to eliminate it as a
competing drug. Similarly, many acts of government corruption and influence
peddling are considered civil violations or administrative “errors” rather than
criminal acts because of the power of these groups, but individuals who lack this
power are viewed as criminals when engaging in similar types of property
offending. Jeffrey Reiman’s book “The Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Jail”
provides a similar idea that equally serious acts are not being treated equally.

Defining Crime as Both Behavior and a Label

Rather than defining crime as either normative/legal behavior or a label, Howard

Becker has argued that any adequate definition of crime must look at both of
these dimensions of crime. Under Becker’s model, you must ask two questions
in defining crime: (1) is the person involved in law violating behavior (no or yes)?
and (2) what is the societal label/reaction to that person (i.e., is the person
perceived as a criminal or non-criminal)? When these two dimensions are
considered simultaneously, there are four distinct types of crime/criminals (see
table below):

Engaged in Law- Violating Behavior?

Societal Reaction?
No Yes

Perceived as Non-Criminal Non-Criminal Secret Criminal

Perceived as a Criminal Falsely Accused Criminals

Several observations can be made about the four types of crimes/criminals

under this classification scheme. First, most people are “non-criminals” (i.e., they
don’t engage in law-violating behavior and are not viewed as criminals).

Second, some people who do not engage in criminal behavior but are perceived
as criminals are “falsely accused”-- for example, the Innocence Project has led to
the exoneration by DNA evidence of over 220 “falsely accused” convicted
murders and rapists.

Third, most criminology textbooks focus on the category of “criminals” (i.e.,

persons who engage in law-violating behavior and who are labeled by society as
criminals). Fourth, Becker says that the particular group of offenders who are the
most injurious to a society is the “secret criminals” because they are engaging in
illegal behavior but are not perceived as criminals.

Many white-collar offenders who engage in illegal business practices and

political officials (who accept bribes/kickbacks for political favors) are good
examples of these “secret criminals”. Other examples of “secret criminals”
include government officials/agencies that engage in “illegal activities” but are
viewed as legitimate because of dubious claims of their necessity for protecting
“national security” and acts of ageism/racism/sexism in the workplace (these
acts are viewed as civil violations, not criminal acts).

Summary:

There are different ways of defining crime. Crime may be viewed as behavior
that violates moral standards that are widely shared by all members of a
society. Crime is also defined legally as law-violating behavior, whereas a labeling
definition considers criminal definitions to be socially constructed by those who
have the power to do so. Becker’s ideas about looking at both behavior and
labeling definitions are important for any reasonable discussion about what is
crime and its nature and distribution in modern, industrial societies.

Application Questions:

1. Why is a normative/moral definition of crime of limited value in

explaining what specific behaviors are considered criminal acts in
contemporary American society?

2. How does a legal definition of crime explain why some states have the
death penalty for 1st degree murders and other states only have life
imprisonment as the maximum punishment for these crimes?

3. Apply what you now know about different ways of defining crime to
explain the following facts: Why is alcohol and tobacco defined as
legal drugs for adults to consume in all U.S. states, but marijuana is
illegal for consumption in nearly all states?

Chapter 3:
The Development and Functions of Criminal Law

Objectives:

• Identify the major functions or purposes of criminal law in a society.

• Know how the criminal law is used to protect all members of a society and
particular interest groups or elites in that society.

• Be able to explain the idea of "social engineering" as it relates to the

purpose/function of criminal law.

Criminal laws serve various purposes and functions in a society. Sometimes

social norms (things that one should do as a member of a society) are translated
into legal norms (things that you are legally obligated to do) through the process
of legalization. In other cases, the content of criminal laws has little to do with
preserving or protecting cherished beliefs and norms in a society. Instead,
criminal laws are used to either protect particular interests or groups, eliminate
some undesirable conduct, or to control and regulate social relations. Examples
of the purposes/functions of the development and passage of criminal laws
include the following:

1. Reinforce public standards of morality by strictly enforcing particular laws

and punishing wrongdoing.

2. Protect the wider society by using criminal punishments to incapacitate

in jail and prisons those who have committed criminal acts and by using
the threat of swift, certain, and severe punishment to deter those who
may be thinking about engaging in criminal behavior.

3. Protect the interests of particular groups by legitimizing their behavior

and using the criminal law to criminalize/penalize behavior that threatens
these ruling class or elite interests.

4. Maintain and regulate social order and social relations--the passage of

various types of laws (criminal, traffic, administrative, contracts/torts)
increases predictability and reduces chaos.

5. Provide a forum for state punishment that discourages acts of revenge by

individuals/groups.

6. Provide a basis for social engineering--that is, using the criminal law to
eliminate undesirable social problems and to promote constructive social
changes. Criminal laws that focus on teen drinking, disorderly conduct,
and hate crimes are some examples of social engineering. Other laws
surrounding compulsory school attendance, public housing, and equal
opportunity/employment also represent this function of social
engineering.

Watch Video Crim6:

Why Dead Letter Laws Remain?

Regardless of the particular content of the criminal law, a closer examination of

the original legislation and amendments to it will often reveal the purpose or
function of these criminal laws. For example, it is written in the preface to most
state’s current laws on sex offender registration and community notification that
the purpose of these laws is to protect the community from sexual
predators. Even in the case of “loony laws” (e.g., city ordinances and state laws
that are weird and outdated), you can often uncover both the manifest (the
explicitly stated reason) and latent functions (the hidden agenda) that underlies
these laws.

Application Questions:

1. Why are traffic laws necessary? What are the multiple purposes that they
serve?

2. Why is it against the law in France to name a pig "Napoleon"?

3. Why are most white collar offenders (e.g., insider traders, industrial polluters)
only given monetary penalties for their crimes, but ordinary citizens who
commit similar crimes (e.g., grand larceny and burglary; destruction of
property) are often given jail time for their offenses?

4. Under Nevada State Law, possession of marijuana for persons over 21 is a

misdemeanor offense (punishable by a fine), but the same offense for a
person under 21 is a felony (subject to a possible prison sentence).

Give several possible explanations why there are different penalties for
adults and juveniles for this drug offense. When considering these
explanations, think about the manifest and latent functions of laws and,
specifically, how the different punishments for adults and juveniles for
marijuana possession may reflect efforts at "social engineering" by various
interest groups within Nevada.

Chapter 4:
Crime and the Structure of Society

Objectives:

• Know the general model that describes how the nature of societal
complexity is linked to differences in the level of crime in that society.

• Identify the characteristics of pre-industrial societies that explain why

these societies often have low levels of crime.

• Identify the characteristics of most industrialized societies that explain why

these societies often have higher levels of crime.

• Know the concept of "Hyperlexis" and how it explains why there is more
crime in U.S. than less developed and less culturally diverse countries.

It is often assumed that increases in crime are an inevitable consequence when

societies become more diverse, industrial, and complex. How and why this is
thought to happen is because the “evil” social forces associated with increasing
societal complexity (e.g., industrialization, urbanization, modernization,
population increases) lead to aspects of social disorganization (e.g., a breakdown
of bonds to society, increased density and competition for scarce resources,
increased inequality in wealth, greater diversity and cultural heterogeneity)
which, in turn, leads to greater levels of alienation and anomie (e.g., a sense of
normlessness in the society) and higher levels of criminal behavior. This model of
societal complexity and crime is summarized below:

Industrializationà Breakdown of Bondsà Alienationà Crime

Urbanization Density/Competition Anomie
Modernization Wealth and Inequality
Population Growth Diversity/Heterogeneity

What we know from historical and comparative research, however, is that all
societies (no matter how complex/diverse they are) have crime and deviance. In
addition, societies vary dramatically in terms of how they define crime, respond
to crime, and ultimately their level of crime. To understand this relationship
between crime and the structure of society requires an examination of the
characteristics of particular types of societies. A comparison of the nature of
“pre-industrial” and “industrial” societies provides a basis for examining the role
and nature of crime in both types of societies.

Pre-industrial societies are often characterized by their relatively small size,

homogeneity of their population (i.e. they share a common language, heritage,
culture, religion, etc.), and their relatively simple division of labor (hunters vs.
gathers). When viewed comparatively and historically, examples of pre-industrial
societies would include colonial America, the tribal societies of Africa, and the
island nations of the South Pacific.

Within these societies, social order

is based on conduct norms about
what one should or should not do as
a member of these societies. Social
order is maintained through the
strict enforcement of these social
norms/customs that are widely
shared and supported by the
members of these communities (this
is called informal social control when
behavior is regulated by non-state
authority [like family, friends, and
neighbors]).

The response to crime and other deviance is retribution (e.g., the eye-for-eye
doctrine) to restore order in these societies. Some of these societies also have a
collective responsibility for crime, meaning in this context that a crime is a
private wrong against a person but all members of the offending party’s family
are responsible for the deviant act.

When you are responsible for the

actions of other family members, a
model of collective responsibility
promotes conformity. While
criminal laws may be established
to reinforce these public standards
of appropriate conduct, these
types of methods of social control

are often unnecessary because individuals are fully entrenched in these societies
and informal mechanisms of social control (e.g., gossip, public ridicule,
ostracism) are extremely effective because your life depends on others in your
community. Under these types of societies, crime is relatively uncommon
because of (1) shared views among all members of the community about what is
appropriate behavior, (2) the collective responsibility for crime, and (3) the
effectiveness of informal social controls that regulate one’s behavior.

Unfortunately, in most cases of societal evolution, the relative tranquility of pre-

industrial and tribal societies is disrupted by several major social forces that lead
to fundamental changes in the nature of these societies and the types of social
control used within them. For example, one consequence of increases in
population size and mobility is the infusion of different values/beliefs and other
types of cultural diversity. The nature of hunting/gathering activities may also
fundamentally change, resulting in an increasingly complex and diverse division
of labor. Social order based on kinship ties may also be disrupted by these
external forces, often resulting in a change from kinship to the establishment of
the state as the major institution in these societies. Ultimately, these social
changes typically result in a change in the definitions of crime (e.g., from social
norm violations to legal norm violations), the content of law (e.g., crime changes
from a private wrong to a public wrong with the state as its victim), and the
primary mechanisms of social control shift from informal to formal means (e.g.,
the use of a state or other formal bodies to impose criminal sanctions and
enforce torts/contract laws).

The nature of law and society in

industrial or developed countries is
based on a different system of social
order and regulation. As represented
by contemporary American life,
industrial societies are often
characterized by population
heterogeneity/diversity, a complex
division of labor, and the unequal
distribution of wealth.

Within these types of societies, definitions of crime are based on the idea of
legal norm violations, crime is considered a public harm against the state, and
there is individual responsibility for its occurrence. The societal response to
crime is designed to meet various purposes, including retribution, deterrence,
and incapacitation. Social order in these pluralist societies is maintained through
the threat and enforcement of legal rules and other mechanisms of formal social
control. Although informal social controls (like gossip, ostracism, shaming) are
still used in industrialized societies, they are often less effective in these societies

because people are less dependent upon others--you can more easily find new
friends/associates in these societies if someone “disses” you. The criminal law
becomes increasingly important as a formal mechanism of control in
industrialized societies. Because more behavior becomes regulated by legal
norms in industrialized societies, more potential criminal behavior is likely in
these societies.

So, is increased crime an inevitable consequence of greater societal

complexity? The answer depends on the society’s ability to maintain social
control within this changing environment. For countries that have gone through
massive social change toward industrialization and development but have still
maintained strong informal bonds because of cultural homogeneity or the
preservation of uniform cultural values, increased crime does not have to occur
as this society changes from a pre-industrial to industrial society.

For example, Japan’s crime rate has remained relatively stable over the last half
century even though it has gone through major industrial development. A similar
situation arises in many developing countries within Europe and Asia. However,
if these changes are associated with major changes in population concentration,
diversity, and economic inequality, increasing crime rates may be the result of
these social changes.

Watch Video Crim7:

Hyperlexis

Application Questions:

1. Even though it is more often a characteristic of pre-industrial societies,

identify several examples of how the notion of “collective responsibility" is
also used in more industrialized societies like the United States.

2. Applying the model of societal complexity and crime, how would you explain
the fact that Japan is a highly industrialized society, but it has a relatively low
crime rate?

3. Why is there really no such thing as a "victimless crime" in most industrialized

societies?

4. Hyperlexis has been called a "national disease" in the U.S. because laws
regulate and control virtually everything we do in our daily lives. In contrast
to this notion of hyperlexis, describe a particular type of human activity in
modern American society that is not regulated either directly or indirectly by
legal rules.

Chapter 5:
Crime Statistics (Sources/Methods of Counting Crime)

Objectives:

• Know why it is important for law enforcement officials, criminologists,

and the general public to have an accurate measure of the nature and
extent of crime.

• Know the general process by which crime data is collected and reported
in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the newer National
Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS).

• Identify the general trends in the UCR data for (1) offenses known to
the police and (2) the characteristics of persons arrested.

• Recognize the major strengths and weaknesses of police data as an

accurate measure of the extent and nature of crime in the United
States.

A primary goal of crime statistics is to gain an accurate measure of the extent

and distribution of crime. Having an accurate measure of the true nature of
crime is important for at least three reasons:

First, an accurate measure of crime

enables police departments to allocate
resources to fight crime because these
statistics will show the “hot spots” for
criminal behavior and the risk factors
associated with crime. It also helps police
departments judge whether particular
crime prevention programs are working
or not. For example, if security cameras
on street corners are effective in
reducing open-market drug dealing, you
would expect fewer drug offenses in these areas after cameras are installed.
However, if the measurement of specific types of drug crimes is not accurate,

then it is not possible to evaluate whether or not this prevention program is

working.

Second, criminologists need an accurate measure of the nature and extent of

crime to evaluate the utility of criminological theories. For example,
criminologists have long believed that poverty is a risk factor for crime because
police data shows that crime is more common in low-income areas than middle-
or upper-class areas. However, if this “poverty causes crime” link is due to biases
in police data (e.g., that police patrol low-income areas more frequently and
therefore record more crime in these areas), then any theory that says “poverty
causes crime” is based on the flaws of existing crime data. As described in most
criminological textbooks, both victimization surveys and self-report studies of
criminal behavior indicate that lower class people in the U.S. are not necessarily
more crime prone than other social classes.

Third, an accurate measure of crime is important for citizens to have a

reasonable estimate of their risks of criminal victimization. If people know the
risk factors for crime, they can modify their routine daily activities and lifestyles
to reduce these risks. However, if we don’t have an accurate measure of crime,
we don’t know the risk factors for crime, and therefore, criminologists can’t
provide the public with important crime prevention information.

Due to the importance of getting an accurate measure of crime, criminologists

have developed three distinct approaches for counting crime and its
characteristics. These methods include (1) the use of official crime statistics
compiled by police departments, (2) self-report studies of one’s criminal
behavior, and (3) surveys of crime victims. As described below, each of these
methods of counting crime has some strengths and some limitations in their
pursuit of providing an accurate measure of the true extent of crime. They also
provide a somewhat different profile of the extent of crime, its social and spatial
distribution, and the offender and offense characteristics associated with
particular crimes.

U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Crime Data Reports

The most widely used source of crime data in the U.S. is the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). Implemented in the early
1930s, these data are based on police reports of crimes agencies across the
country compiled and summarized by the FBI in annual reports. As its name
implies, these data provide a uniform measure of crime across different
jurisdictions because criminal acts are recorded and counted in a consistent and
uniform way across different police departments.

As of January 2021, the original UCR program was replaced by the National
Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Similar to the UCR program, NIBRS
compiles annual data from police agencies. As of May 2024, 82% of the U.S.
population is covered by NIBRS-reporting law enforcement agencies.

NIBRS and UCR data differ in several basic ways. For example, UCR data used a
hierarchical rule in which only the most serious crime in an incident is counted,
whereas NIBRS counts all crimes in an incident. NIBRS also collects data on a
larger variety of offense categories, like extortion and specific types of drug
offenses, and offers far more details about the circumstances of the crime, like
its location, time, weapon used, and the demographic characteristics of both the
victims and offenders.

Most criminologists believe that the original UCR and revised NIBRS data
represent the single best national estimates of the prevalence of crime known to
the police. However, these data are not an accurate measure of the true extent
of crime because most crimes in the U.S. and other countries are unknown to
the police.

UCR and NIBRS data provide estimates of the number of known offenses and the
number of arrests for the entire nation, each state, and other geographical areas
(cities, large urban areas, counties, town, college campuses). The primary
classification used in the original UCR data is the distinction between the Part I
Offenses and the Part II offenses.

The Part I offenses are the primary focus in the UCR data and include the
following offenses: violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assaults)
and property crimes (burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson). UCR
estimates of the prevalence of known offenses and arrests for these crimes for
2019 are presented in Table 5.1.

Arrest data for some Part II Offenses are summarized in Table 5.2.

Several conclusions about the nature of known offenses and arrests can be
derive from these UCR data in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2:

First, most of the Part I offenses known to the police are property crimes, and
the single most prevalent offense among these crimes is larceny-theft. About
85% of the Part I offenses known to the police are property crimes. Among the
violent crimes, aggravated assaults and robberies are the most common
offenses. Over 821,000 aggravated assaults and about 268,000 robberies were

known to law enforcement agencies in 2019 compared to about 140,000 rapes

and about 16,400 murders in this same year.

Second, the clearance rate represents the proportion of crimes known to the
police that are cleared by the arrest of the suspect or “exceptional means” (e.g.,
suicide of the offender, justifiable killing by police or citizen). As shown above,
violent crimes have a far higher clearance rate (46% of these offenses are
cleared by an arrest) than property crimes (17%). Murders (61%) and aggravated
assaults (52%) have the highest clearance rates among all Part I offenses.

The higher clearance rate for these violent crimes is attributed to the following
factors:

(1) there is greater pressure on police departments to “solve” homicides and

thus, they devote more resources to investigate them,
(2) most murders and aggravated assaults involve family members and
friends/acquaintances, making them easier crimes to identify the
suspects, and
(3) because of their personal relationship with their victims, offenders of
murders and aggravated assaults are more likely to call the police and
report these crimes themselves.

Third, most arrests in the U.S. are for Part II offenses (see Table 5.2). Drug-abuse
offenses are the single most prevalent arrested offense. As a group, alcohol-
related offenses (driving under the influence, liquor law violations, and public
drunkenness) are also a common basis for arrests.

Based on NIBRS data on violent crimes know to the police, nearly 1 million
aggravated assaults, 200,000 robberies, about 100,000 rapes, and 23,000
murders and non-negligence manslaughters occurred in the U.S. in 2021. Among
property crimes for this same year, NIBRS data estimate that over 4.6 million
larceny and thefts, about 900,000 burglaries, and an additional 900,000 motor
vehicle thefts occurred nationally.

Crime Patterns Based on FBI Crime Data

UCR and NIBRS data provide estimates of the prevalence of particular crimes
over time, across different geographical units, and the demographic profile of
arrested persons. These crime patterns are summarized below:

1. U.S. Crime Rates over Time

Crime rates can be computed for different types of crimes by taking the number
of particular crimes known to the police, dividing this number by the population
size, and multiplying by 100,000 to convert these numbers into a standardized
rate. When conducted over time, these calculations reveal that the crime rates
for both violent and property offenses have vacillated widely over the last half
century. For each of these crime categories, crime rates generally increased over
the 1960s and peaked in the early 1980s before dropping until the mid 1980s,
increased again until early 1990s, followed by a relatively steep decline up to the
last year of UCR data collection (2019). The violent and property crime rates
from UCR data over the last 60 years are shown in the following graphs:

Violent Crime Rate per 100,000

(UCR 1960-2019)
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017

Several explanations have been offered for the dramatic rise in violent crimes
(especially murder) throughout the 1960s.

These explanations include:

(1) the theory of legitimation of violence (by Archer and Gardner) that
explains the rise in violence after wars---this theory argues that state-
sponsored violence legitimizes violence among those who return from
war and live in post-war time periods (i.e., the positive value of violence
in wartime is carried over to post-war periods),
(2) a rise in juvenile gang activities in major U.S. cities in the 1960s,
(3) an increased availability of handguns in this time period,
(4) changes in the age structure, with more people in the crime-prone age
group of 18 to 24 years old, and
(5) changes in routine activities and lifestyles in the 1960s that increased
people’s exposure to more risky and dangerous activities outside the
home and decreased their protection (e.g., increases in the number of
people living alone).

Property Crime Rate per

100,000 (UCR 1960-2019)
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017

2. Factors Associated with Crime Rates (Correlates of Crime)

Based on UCR data, crime rates in the U.S. vary widely across time and space. For
example, violent crime rates are generally higher in some regions of the country
(Southern and Western states) than other regions (the Midwest and Northeast).
The higher rate of violence in the South has been attributed to a Southern
cultural history of violence, whereas the idea of the “wild west” frontier
mentality is also a historical legacy that may contribute to the higher rates of
violent crime in the West. Violent crime rates also tend to be higher in
geographical areas with greater population density (e.g., in crowded cities with
high population concentration than in more spread-out areas) and in summer
months than other times of the year. Property crime rates exhibit less dramatic
differences by region of the country, population density, and seasonality than is
found among violent crime rates.

3. The Social Profile of People Arrested for Index Crimes

Persons arrested for crime in the U.S. are not a random cross-section of the
population. Instead, particular groups of people (e.g., males, African Americans,
18-24 year olds) are far more likely to be arrested for both violent and property
crimes than would be true based on their relative proportions in the population.
For example, while males represent about 50% of the U.S. population, they are
widely over-represented among those arrested for murder (88% are male), rape
(97%), robbery (84%), and all other Part I Offenses. Differences in arrests by
gender, age, and race are summarized below:

Gender Differences. Compared to their distribution in the U.S. population, males

are over-represented as arrestees for every Part I Offense and most Part II
Offenses. The major exception to this pattern is for prostitution arrests (a Part II
Offense), where 63% of the persons arrested for this crime are females. Based on
UCR data for 2019, the proportion of arrests for particular offenses that involve
male offenders are murder (88%), rape (97%), robbery (84%), aggravated assault
(76%), burglary (79%), larceny-theft (57%), motor vehicle theft (77%), and arson
(78%). Overall, males account for 79% of those arrested for violent crime and
62% of those arrested for property crimes (UCR 2019).

There are several explanations for the higher arrest rates for males than females.
These include (1) biological explanations for greater criminal propensity among
males (e.g., testosterone-driven male aggression, lower impulse control), (2)
sociological factors (e.g., the cultural expectations surrounding masculinity, peer-
influences), and (3) police biases in arrests (e.g., more police discretion in arrest
decisions for female offenders leads to non-arrests for them but arrests for
males for similar crimes).

Age Differences. The age curve for crime suggests that the peak age for criminal
behavior ranges from 18 to 24 years old and diminishes after that age. As early

as 1815, the Belgium statistician, Adolphe Quetelet, observed this age

distribution of crime. He suggested that 18 to 24 year-olds were less constrained
or freer to commit crime because they were too young for the constraints
imposed by establishing a new family and too old to be controlled by their own
parents. Studies of crime consistently show the rise in criminal propensity from
the early teens to the mid 20s and a decline in criminal behavior after that point.
The age-crime curve varies somewhat by type of crime (e.g., car thieves who are
joyriders tend to be a little younger, murderers a little older, and embezzlers
have to be even older because their crimes require being on the job long enough
to establish a position of trust in order to get access to money and other
company resources to steal). Low self-control, the volatility of youth, and weak
bonds to traditional institutions are common explanations for the higher risks of
offending for teenagers and young adults (see Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990;
Hirschi 1969).

Based on UCR data, persons between the ages of 18 and 24 are the most
common age group for arrests for the index crimes. The proportion of arrestees
under 25 years old for each of these crimes includes the following: murder
(40%), rape (39%), robbery (52%), aggravated assault (26%), burglary (33%),
larceny-theft (30%), motor vehicle theft (38%) and arson (34%).

Racial Differences. Blacks are over-represented in arrests for violent crime and,
to a lesser extent, among those arrested for property crimes. While Blacks make
up about 12% of the U.S. population, African Americans far exceed their
population proportion in arrests for murder (51%), rape (27%), robbery (53%),
aggravated assault (33%), burglary (29%), larceny-theft (30%), motor vehicle
theft (29%), and arson (25%).

Explanations for the disproportionate overrepresentation of Blacks as arrestees

for violent crime include the following factors: (1) Blacks are involved in greater
levels of violent behavior because of the historical legacy of racial oppression,
slavery, and economic disadvantage that has led to greater frustration and
aggression, (2) Violence is more commonly used among Blacks as a method of
dispute resolution because other alternative method of conflict resolution are
not as readily available to them (due to less economic opportunity/resources) (3)
Police are involved in more patrol-related activities in minority neighborhoods,
increasing the chances of arrests for Blacks compared to Whites.

Problems with Police Data as an Accurate Measure of Crime

UCR and NIBRS data are commonly used to measure the extent of crime known
to the police. However, these data are not necessarily an accurate measure of
the true extent of crime because there are some fundamental flaws in how these
data are collected and categorized. The two general limitations of these police

data and other crime data include questions about their (1) external validity
(i.e., Can we generalize to all crimes and jurisdictions from police data? Are all
jurisdictions covered in police data and are all crimes known to the police?) and
measurement validity (i.e., Are police data on the nature and prevalence of
particular types of crime uniformly measured/recorded the same way within and
across jurisdictions?). Examples of these two major problems with police data
include the following:

1. Crimes known to the police are not representative of all crimes. We know
from other data sources (e.g., self-reports by offenders, victim surveys) that only
a very small proportion of crimes are known to the police. Most crimes become
known to the police because a citizen reports it. If citizens don’t report crimes,
they won’t be recorded in police data. In victimization surveys, we ask people
whether they reported this particular crime to the police and the majority say
“no”.

Estimates are that anywhere between only 1 out of 10 and 1 out 1000 crimes are
actually reported to the police or observed by them directly. People typically
don’t report crimes to the police for various reasons, including (1) a feeling that
nothing could be done (because they don’t have insurance against theft or
injury), (2) fear of retaliation by the offender for reporting it, (3) a belief that it
was a “private matter”, and/or (4) a belief that the police would not want to be
bothered even if the offense was reported.

This gap between the amount of crimes known to the police and the true extent
of crime is called the “dark figures of crime”. Even in the case of homicide, a lot
of killings are treated as accidents or “missing persons” rather than counted as
murders. For offenses like minor property crimes and drug offenses, the dark
figures are enormous. Also, because only a small proportion of index crimes are
cleared by an arrest, it is unlikely that people who are arrested are actually
representative of those who commit these offenses. In short, this gap between
known offenses and actual offenses makes it difficult to claim that police data
are an accurate measure of crime in a community.

2. National Coverage Problems. The original UCR data program states that it
covers over 95% of the police jurisdictions in the country for any given year. As
of January 2024, NIBRS data is said to represent about 82% of police agencies.
Unfortunately, these data provide an overstatement of their national coverage
because some jurisdictions only report data for a small period of time over the
entire year and other agencies don’t systematically report this data. In these
cases, the FBI and its statistical consultants use various algorithms and
estimation procedures to derive data for these missing areas. Some
criminologists have raised seriously questions about whether these estimation
techniques are meaningful or not.

3. Non-Uniform Reporting of Police Data Across Jurisdictions. Even though the

FBI provides training manuals and detailed instructions on how police
departments should record and submit crime data, one of the major criticisms of
the police data is its lack of uniform recording of crime across jurisdictions (i.e.,
issues of measurement validity). Examples of this problem include the following:

• The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has been found to record
aggravated assaults in cases of domestic violence as “domestic assaults”
rather than “aggravated assaults”, resulting in false claims about a
dramatic decrease in the violent crime rate (which is based on reported
aggravated assaults, robberies, murders, and rapes) over this time period
of under-reporting aggravated assaults to the FBI.

• The Philadelphia Police Department has a long history of counting rapes

as “trespasses” or “investigations”. By using these codes, they could
downgrade the number of rapes that were reported as Part I offenses to
the FBI, thereby providing a distorted image that Philadelphia was/is a
safe city.

• Atlanta downgraded numerous Part I Offenses to Part II Offenses to make

the city appear to have less crime in order to get the bid for the site for
the 2000 Summer Olympic Games. Part II offenses are not reported in
UCR summaries of known offenses by jurisdiction.

• The hierarchical rule is used in cases of multiple crimes that are

committed within a particular behavioral incident. In these cases, only
the most serious crime should be recorded in the police data. So, for
example, in a murder that occurs in an attempted robbery and carjacking,
only the murder would count in UCR data. However, to decrease their
levels of crime, some police departments may apply this hierarchical rule
in many other situations to dramatically reduce the level of reported
crimes in their jurisdiction. NIBRS data may help fix this problem by
requiring the reporting of all crimes separately that occur in a crime
incident.

Watch Video Crim8: Watch Video Crim9:

Statistical Lies in NIBRS Data

Official Crime Data

Application Questions:

1. Give several examples that illustrate why the FBI's Uniform Crime
Reports (UCR) and the more recent National Incident Based Reporting
System (NIBRS) are not uniformly coded, collected and/or reported
across different police jurisdictions.

2. Why would a police department deliberately distort and/or

manipulate their crime statistics?

3. According to police data, males account for about 80% of the persons
arrested for violent crimes. Why can't you infer from this statistic
from police data that the vast majority of violent offenders are male?

4. Based on police data, the auto theft rate in Las Vegas has decreased
dramatically over the last 5 years. Give at least 5 different
explanations for this crime drop that focus on such factors as changes
in the criminal activity of offenders, how the Las Vegas police
count/record car thefts, technological advances in anti-theft devices,
and/or changes in population dynamics (e.g., the aging of the
population, the number of tourists in town, etc.).

5. How does the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

eliminate the problem with the Hierarchical rule in the UCR
recording/coding system?

Chapter 6:
Self-Reports of Offending

Objectives:

• Know the general history underlying self-reports of human behavior.

• Identify why self-report studies provide a valuable contribution to what

we know about crime.

• Understand the conditions under which self-report studies of criminal

activity are best able to elicit valid and reliable responses.

• Know the major weaknesses of self-reports as a measure of the

prevalence and nature of criminal activity among both juveniles and
adults.

• Have a general understanding of what self-report studies tell us about

the "dark figures of crime" and the prevalence of various types of risky
and criminal behaviors among adolescents and adults.

As a response to the potential biases in police reports on crime, criminologists in

the 1950s turned to alternative methods of measuring the extent of crime. One
of these methods involved asking people directly about their involvement in
criminal activities. This method is known as the self report approach to
measuring crime. It is based on the fundamental assumption that offenders
themselves are the single best source for information about the prevalence of
criminal behavior. If people can report their criminal activity in complete
confidence and without legal ramifications, self-report studies should be better
able than police data to narrow the huge “dark figures” gap between known
offenses and the true extent of crime.

Self-report studies of crime and deviant behavior have been used widely
throughout the 20th and 21st century to measure various aspects of human life.

Sex researchers (like Masters and Johnson, Kinsey) used self-report surveys to
measure the prevalence of various kinds of sexual practices. Within criminology,
James Short and Ivan Nye conducted the first self-report studies on juveniles in
the 1950s. Since these earlier studies on juveniles, self-report surveys have been
used to examine the prevalence and nature of a wide variety of juvenile and
adult criminal behavior including (1) drug and alcohol use, (2) employee theft
and other types of white collar crimes, (3) domestic violence, (4) income tax
evasion, and (5) sex offending. The results of these self-report studies indicate
that crime is far more prevalent than is suggested from official crime reports
(UCR data) and that differences in offending on the basis of gender, age, and
race are less dramatic than those found in UCR data. For example, the gender
gap in drug/alcohol use is only slightly higher for men than women in self-report
studies.

To reduce respondents’ fear of legal liability for making incriminating statements

by their admissions of criminal behavior, it is extremely important that self-
report respondents feel that they can respond truthfully and anonymously to
questions about their criminal activities. This is sometimes difficult to guarantee,
but self-report researchers often use various strategies to minimize these
concerns. For example, self-report surveys may be given in a group setting
without any personal identifiers (like one’s name, address, race, age). Sometimes
the self-report questions are also written in a vague way (e.g., “have you ever
taken anything from work without your boss’s permission” rather than asking
directly “have you stolen over $100 in cash from your employer”?) to make the
respondent feel more at ease in truthfully answering these questions.

Unfortunately, the more vague the wording is to these questions (e.g., have you
ever hit someone in anger?), the more difficult it is to assume that the person is
actually talking about criminal behaviors.

Here are some examples of self-report items used in national youth surveys. Do
you think that juveniles would be truthful in their responses to these questions
about drug, alcohol, violence, and sexual behavior?

Self-Report Estimates of Risky Behavior by U.S. High School Students

Risky Behavior 1995 2005 2017

Drug Use Patterns:

• Alcohol Use in Past Month 52 % 43 % 30 %

• Tobacco Use in Past Month 35 % 23 % 17 %
• Marijuana Use in Past Month 25 % 20 % 20 %
• Ever Used Cocaine 3% 3% 5%

Sexual Activity Patterns:

• Ever Had Sexual Intercourse 53 % 47 % 40 %

• Had Sexual Intercourse in Past Month 38 % 34 % 29 %
• Condom Use During Last Sexual Intercourse 54 % 63 % 54 %

Other Risky Activity Patterns:

• Involved in Physical Fight in Past 30 days 39 % 36 % 24 %

• Considered Attempted Suicide in Past 12 Months 24 % 17 % 17 %
• Drove When Drinking Alcohol in Past 30 Days 15 % 10 % 8%
• Carried Gun in Past 30 Days 8% 5% 5%

Source: National Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance (YRBS) 1995-2017

Application Questions:

1. Under what conditions, if any, do people give truthful and honest

answers in self-report studies of criminal behavior?

2. It is estimated from various national surveys of youth that about one-

fourth of adolescents have been in a physical fight within the past
year.

• List and describe at least four specific factors (e.g., how the
questions were worded and interpreted, who responded to the
survey) that may lead these national surveys to actually
overestimate the prevalence of fighting among juveniles.

• List and describe at least four specific factors (e.g., how the
questions were worded and interpreted, who responded to the
survey) that may lead these national surveys to actually
underestimate the prevalence of fighting among juveniles.

Chapter 7:
National Victimization Surveys

Objectives:

• Know the general trends in the prevalence and nature of crime over
time based on the National Crime Victimization Surveys (NCVS).

• Identify the most common types of victimization among violent crimes

and property crimes.

• Identify particular gender, age, and racial groups that have the highest
and lowest risks of criminal victimization in the NCVS data.

• Know the major weaknesses of the NCVS data and other victim surveys
as a valid measure of the prevalence and nature of criminal activity.

An alternative measure of the prevalence and nature of crime involves asking

crime victims about offenses committed against them. In the U.S., the primary
victimization survey is the National Crime Victimization Surveys (NCVS). These
surveys have been conducted yearly since the mid 1970s and provide estimates
of victimization based on random samples of between 50,000 and 100,000
household respondents.

The NCVS data include estimates of the prevalence

of both personal and household victimization and
the characteristics of these victims. These data
indicate that the proportion of American
households that have been “touched” by crime has
decreased from over 30% of the households in the
1980s to less than 12% of U.S. households in 2010s.

35
Copyright @2024
Criminology Chapter 7: National Victimization Surveys

The downward trends in national victimization risks based on NCVS data are
shown in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 below:

Table 7.1: % Victim of Violent Crime in Last Year—Age 12 or Older

(1993 to 2019)

Source: BJS, NCVS (1993-2019)

Table 7.2: % of U.S. Households with a burglary in last 12 months.

(1993-2019)

Source: BJS, NCVS (1993-2019)

36
Copyright @2024
Criminology Chapter 7: National Victimization Surveys

NCVS data for 2019 on the demographic and geographic differences in

rates of violent and property victimization are summarized in Table 7.3 to
7.6. Yellow highlighting within these tables emphasizes the particular
groups with the highest victimization rates within each type of violent
and property crime.

Major differences in violent victimization rates among different

demographic and geographical groupings include the following (see also
Tables 7.3 and 7.4):

• Violent victimization rates are often slightly higher for men than
women for overall rates, robbery, and aggravated assault
victimization. Women have higher risk of sexual victimization and
simple assault.

• For all violent offenses except sexual assaults, Blacks and “other”
racial groups have higher victimization rates than Whites.

• Hispanics tend to have slightly higher violent victimization risks

than non-Hispanics for most violent offenses.

• Persons under 25 have the highest risks of violent victimization for

all violent offenses. Victimization rates for each type of violent
crime are far lowest among persons over 65 years old.

• Persons with a household income of less than $15,000 have the

high rate of violent victimization for all types of violent crimes.
These risks of violent victimization tend to decrease with
increases in household income.

• Western states have the highest rates of violent victimization (see

Table 7.4). Southern and Northeastern states have the lowest
risks of violent victimization overall and for most types of violent
offenses.

• Urban areas have higher violent victimization rates than suburban

and rural areas for all crime. Rates of violent victimization are
lowest within rural areas of less than 25,000 residents. Urban
areas with a population over 250,000 have the highest risks of
violent victimization for each type of offense.

37
Copyright @2024
Criminology Chapter 7: National Victimization Surveys

When compared to other time periods, these demographic and

geographical groupings associated with the higher violent victimization
rates have not changed over time. For example, based on NCVS data in
the 1980s and 1990s, violent victimization risks were also higher among
persons who are young adults, lower income, and urban residents.

Table 7.3: Violent Victimization Rates per 1,000 (persons aged 12 or older)
by Demographic Characteristics of the Victim (NCVS 2019)
Victim Overall Violent Rape/Sexual Robbery Aggravated Simple
Characteristics Victimization Assaults Assault Assault
Total Sample 21.1 1.7 1.9 3.7 13.7
Gender:
Male 21.2 .4 2.3 4.8 13.6
Female 20.8 2.9 1.6 2.6 13.8
Race:
White 20.6 1.8 1.8 3.7 13.4
Black 19.2 .8 2.8 3.4 12.1
Other 26.6 1.6 2.2 4.0 18.8
Ethnicity:
Hispanic 21.3 1.4 2.7 6.1 11.1
Non-Hispanic 20.9 1.7 1.8 3.2 14.3

Age:
12-14 33.1 .8 1.9 2.0 28.4
15-17 37.2 4.7 3.7 9.1 19.7
18-20 40.9 7.1 3.1 6.4 24.2
21-24 34.4 6.4 3.2 5.9 18.9
25-34 25.0 1.2 2.7 5.0 16.2
35-49 19.5 1.3 1.8 3.7 12.8
50-64 18.9 .9 1.7 3.0 13.3
65 + 6.0 .1 .6 1.1 4.1

Income:
< $ 7.5k 49.3 9.7 5.8 8.8 25.1
$ 7.5k - $ 15k 54.8 4.5 4.3 6.6 39.4
$ 15k -$ 25k 34.5 3.0 3.2 6.5 21.8
$ 25k- $ 35k 21.5 .9 2.4 4.9 13.3
$ 35k - $ 50k 22.4 3.7 2.3 3.1 13.4
$ 50k- $ 75k 19.6 1.8 2.1 2.8 13.0
> $ 75k 16.4 .6 .7 2.2 12.8
Source: NCVS Victimization Analysis Tool ([Link]).
Note: The highest rates within each category are highlighted in yellow.

38
Copyright @2024
Criminology Chapter 7: National Victimization Surveys

Table 7.4: Violent Victimization Rates per 1,000 (persons aged 12 or older)
by Geographical Location (NCVS 2015)
Victim Overall Violent Rape/Sexual Robbery Aggravated Simple
Characteristics Victimization Assaults Assault Assault
Total Sample 21.0 1.7 1.9 3.7 13.7

U.S. Region:
Northeast 19.1 .7 1.8 3.0 13.5
Midwest 21.3 2.1 1.7 3.2 14.3
South 16.1 1.3 2.0 3.2 9.6
West 29.9 2.6 2.1 5.3 19.8

Urbanicity:
Urban 22.7 1.9 3.1 3.6 14.1
Suburban 17.3 1.7 1.9 2.7 10.9
Rural 14.0 .6 .7 3.0 9.7

Population Size:
< 100,000 22.1 1.9 1.5 3.8 14.9
100k – 250k 18.5 1.1 1.9 3.5 11.9
250k – 500k 30.6 2.2 2.8 7.8 17.8
500k – 1m 27.2 1.3 3.0 3.3 19.6
>1,000,000 22.5 1.3 5.1 3.7 12.4
Source: NCVS Victimization Analysis Tool ([Link]).
Note: The highest rates within each category are highlighted in yellow.

Tables 7.5 and 7.6 reveal the demographic and geographical differences
in rates of property victimization. Most of the same groups differences
for violent victimization rates are also found among property
victimization. These patterns for property victimization rates include the
following:

• Rates for property victimization are generally higher for female-

headed households than male-headed households (Table 7.5).
The greater risks for property victimization for women are also
found among all types of property crimes (except motor vehicle
theft).

• For all types of property victimizations (i.e., burglary, motor

vehicle theft, household theft), households headed by Black

39
Copyright @2024
Criminology Chapter 7: National Victimization Surveys

residents and “other” racial minorities have higher risks of

victimization than White residents. Hispanic-headed households
also have higher risks of property victimization for most types of
property crime than non-Hispanic households.

Table 7.5: Property Victimization Rates per 1,000 Households by Demographic

Characteristics of the Household Head and Household (NCVS 2019)
Victim Overall Property Household Motor Household
Characteristics Victimization Rate Burglary Vehicle Theft Theft
Total Sample 101.4 17.2 3.9 80.2
Gender:
Male 95.3 15.3 4.3 75.7
Female 107.3 19.1 3.5 84.7
Race:
White 97.5 16.2 3.6 77.7
Black 112.1 20.2 5.6 86.3
Other 119.8 22.0 4.6 93.3
Ethnicity:
Hispanic 116.2 17.2 6.5 92.4
Non-Hispanic 99.0 17.2 3.5 78.2

Age:
12-19 161.7 23.9 5.9 131.9
20-34 132.8 19.6 7.5 105.6
35-49 116.9 16.4 3.4 97.0
50-64 97.4 19.8 3.2 74.4
65 + 60.0 12.8 1.9 45.3
Income:
< $ 7.5k 172.0 26.9 6.3 138.7
$ 7.5k - $ 15k 171.8 49.9 7.9 114.1
$ 15k -$ 25k 128.3 32.2 5.7 90.5
$ 25k- $ 35k 108.1 19.0 3.4 85.7
$ 35k - $ 50k 109.8 18.3 4.6 86.9
$ 50k- $ 75k 100.9 13.1 4.1 83.7
> $ 75k 96.8 11.8 3.3 81.6
Household Size:
1 person 93.2 24.5 2.3 69.4
2-3 people 95.1 17.3 4.5 75.9
4-5 people 128.5 22.9 4.9 107.1

40
Copyright @2024
Criminology Chapter 7: National Victimization Surveys

6 or more 165.9 38.5 9.5 143.9

Source: NCVS Victimization Analysis Tool ([Link]).

• Households headed by juveniles and young adults (< 19 years old)

have the highest risks of most types of property victimization and
these risks decrease as the age of the household head increases.

• Households with the lowest income (< $15,000) have the highest
risks for each types of property victimization. As household
income increases, these risks of property victimization also tend
to decrease. For each property crimes, the highest income groups
(> $75,000) had the lowest rates of victimization (See Table 7.5).

• For each type of property offense, property victimization rates are

far higher in households with 6 or more members than other
types of household structures and living arrangements.

• The victimization rates for motor vehicle theft, household theft,

and for all property crimes combined are substantially higher for
Western states than other regions of the country. Northeastern
states have the lowest rate of victimization for each type of
property crime (see Table 7.6).

• Urban areas with a population between 250,000 to 1 million have

the highest rates of property victimization overall and for each
type of property crime (See Table 7.6).

Table 7.6: Property Victimization Rates per 1,000 Households

by Geographical Location and Household Size (NCVS 2019)
Victim Overall Property Household Motor Vehicle Household
Characteristics Victimization Rate Burglary Theft Theft
Total Sample 101.4 17.2 3.9 80.2

U.S. Region:
Northeast 70.8 11.2 2.0 57.6
Midwest 87.7 16.9 2.8 68.0
South 93.8 17.3 3.7 72.8
West 151.0 22.2 6.9 121.9

41
Copyright @2024
Criminology Chapter 7: National Victimization Surveys

Population Size:
< 100,000 91.7 17.2 3.1 71.4
100k – 250k 129.5 20.3 5.8 103.4
250k – 500k 167.9 20.8 6.8 140.3
500k – 1m 155.3 19.8 9.9 125.6
>1,000,000 147.2 17.8 5.5 124.0

Watch Video Crim10:

Interpreting NCVS Data

Although NCVS trends over time are widely distributed in the mass media
as the truth about our national exposure to criminal victimization, these
data are susceptible to many problems of research design and human
fallibility when responding to sensitive survey questions. The major
problems with the NCVS survey for accurately representing national rates
of victimization involve issues of external validity and measurement
validity. Examples of these problems include the following:

• Particular groups of people who have high risks of personal

victimization are not included in these surveys (e.g., homeless
people, other transient or mobile individuals, institutionalized
populations). Also, not all people asked to participate in a survey
will respond to a phone call or request for a personal interview.
These are problems of the external validity of victimization studies
because (1) excluding these groups of people with high risks of
victimization will under-represent the true rate of victimization in
the wider population and (2) those who agree to take a survey are
probably different than people who refuse to be interviewed.

• In terms of problems with measurement validity, changes in the

particular wording of screening questions used to elicit
information about one’s victimization experiences have affected
the overall amount of victimizations that are reported in these
surveys. While statistical “corrections” for this problem have been
attempted to make the NCVS time series compatible over time,
these corrections are of limited value if the reporting of these
“new” victimizations is also affected by other factors (e.g., change
42
Copyright @2024
Criminology Chapter 7: National Victimization Surveys

in method from personal interviews to telephone surveys) that

influence response patterns for some types of crimes but not for
others. Due to these changes in question wording, method of
interviewing and screening questions on victimization rates, the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and other government
publications on national victimization rates restrict their analysis
to the trends after the 1992 redesign of the NCVS. However, even
in this post-1992 time period, estimates of national victimization
rates are strongly influenced by these methodological aspects of
the research design (i.e., question wording, method of
interviewing). Another set of changes in research design in 2006
has also influenced the comparability of the yearly findings from
NCVS data over the last decade.

• Crimes committed by acquaintances and family members are

under reported in victimization surveys. Changes in screening
questions and survey method (e.g., telephone vs. personal
interviews) may also affect the presumed victimization rates for
these offenses in different ways over time.

Watch Video Crim11:

Lifetime Victimization Risks

• NCVS data seriously undercount the prevalence of repeated

victimizations that occur on a regular basis. For example,
domestic violence and school bullying may occur on a daily basis,
but the NCVS only counts these continuous offenses as one crime
event when the respondent can’t describe the unique features of
the particular offense.

43
Copyright @2024
Criminology Chapter 7: National Victimization Surveys

Application Questions:

1. The percentage of U.S. households “touched by crime” each year has

steadily decreased from over 30% to about 12% over the last four
decades. What are some of the major substantive reasons (e.g.,
specific examples of changes in the number of potential offenders,
characteristics of the U.S. population, home security improvements,
and/or greater effectiveness of the criminal justice system) and
methodological reasons (e.g., changes in how victimization surveys
are conducted and who responds to surveys) to explain this drop in
victimization rates over time? What particular reasons do you think
best explain this drop in victimization over time?

2. Why are crimes committed by acquaintances and family members

undercounted in NCVS data?

3. The NCVS uses both telephone surveys and personal interviews to

elicit information about people’s victimization experiences. What do
you think would be the major differences in the honest reporting of
victimizations across these methods (e.g., would people be more
truthful on the telephone or in a personal interview when asked
questions about their recent experiences as a crime victim)? Why do
you think this is true?

44
Copyright @2024
Criminology Chapter 8: Crime Trends: Summary of Findings

Chapter 8:
Crime Trends: Summary of Findings Across Methods

Objectives:

• Know that it is unclear whether the amount of crime in the U.S. has
actually increased, decreased, or remained stable over the last 50 years.

• Identify general trends in the prevalence of crime and the profile of

offenders based on the triangulation of research findings from different
methods.

So, what do we know about the prevalence of crime in the U.S. based on the
best available data sources (i.e., UCR, Self-Reports, NCVS data)?

Here’s the most accurate conclusion that we can reach from this data: Too many
people suffer from criminal victimization each year and many of us will probably
experience some type of criminal victimization in our lifetime. We really don’t
know if the amount of crime in America has increased, decreased, or stayed the
same over the last 50 years because trends in UCR and NCVS data may not
accurately reflect the prevalence of crime at any point in time or over
time. Under these conditions, any assertion about the changes in the
prevalence of crime or nature of crime is largely spin and spam.

Even with the limitations of existing data, however, we can still make some
general observations about the nature and prevalence of crime. This is especially
true if we base these conclusions on the triangulation of the research findings
(i.e., combine the results of UCR, Self-Report, and Victimization Surveys to
uncover crime patterns across all 3 data sources). This method of triangulation
reveals the following general conclusions:

1. Crime is a commonplace event in contemporary American

society. At a minimum, NCVS data indicate that an estimated 10% of
U.S. households are “touched” by crime each year. However, it is
reasonable to assume that anywhere between 50% and 90% of U.S.
residents are actually victimized by criminal acts each year when
offenses such as domestic violence (including both spousal and sibling
assaults), minor property offenses (i.e., graffiti, vandalism, stealing

your newspaper), and consumer fraud (e.g., being overcharged for

services, victims of identity theft) are also included in these statistics.

2. Crime is committed by all social classes, but the type of criminal

behavior often varies by social class. While anyone can commit
murder, robbery, and other “street crimes”, a person must be in a
position of power and influence to engage in many “white collar”
crimes (e.g., stock fraud, insider trading, business fraud).

3. Males engage in crime more than females but this gender gap is
narrowing for non-violent crimes (e.g., property crimes, victimless
crimes). There is no solid evidence to support the claim that women
have become increasingly violent over the last twenty years. Men
account for about 90% of the homicide offenders in the U.S. and this
proportion has stayed remarkably stable for over 200 years.

4. The U.S. crime rate over the last two decades has probably been
more stable than is shown by UCR data and claimed by various
media outlets. If crime has changed at all over this time period, the
best guess from national victimization surveys (NCVS) is that it has
decreased in its prevalence over this time period.

5. Young people are the most likely victims and offenders of predatory
crimes. The “age/crime curve” indicates that the highest risks of
offending are for 18-24 year olds and these risks drop after this age
period. A similar age curve applies to one’s risks of being victimized
by a violent crime or property crime.

6. Police apprehend and clear by an arrest only a small proportion of

offenders. The clearance rate is higher for violent crime (about 46%
of known offenses are cleared by an arrest) than property crimes
(about 17% cleared).

Watch Video Crim12:

Ranking the Most Dangerous States

Application Questions:

1. Search the Internet for terms like “the most dangerous states” or
“most dangerous cities”. In one of these sources, look at what
criteria they use to define “dangerousness” and critique this
particular ranking based on information you have learned about the
limitations of any particular measure of the prevalence and nature of
crime.

2. If you could select only 1 method (police data [UCR], victimization

surveys [NCVS], self-report studies) to provide the best estimate of
the prevalence of crime in a particular U.S. city, what method would
you select? Why did you select this method?

Chapter 9:
Overview of Theories of Criminal Behavior

Objectives:

• Explain the differences between theories of etiology and theories of

epidemiology.

• Explain the differences between theories of crime events and theories of

criminality.

• Know the basic assumptions about crime that underlie each of the
following schools/paradigms of criminological thought: Classical School,
Positive School, and Radical/Conflict School.

Theory involves a set of interrelated propositions that are used to explain what
we observe. For example, if we want to explain the occurrence of a particular
criminal incident, we need to identify particular biological, psychological, and/or
sociological factors that may have enabled or constrained the opportunity for
this crime to take place at this particular time or place.

Some theories focus on the etiology of crime (i.e., the biological, psychological,
situational, and/or sociological factors that lead to the onset of criminal
behavior). These theories also identify the causes of the shift from law-abiding to
criminal behavior and the individual-level factors that lead to its persistence and
desistance. Biological and psychological theories are commonly used to explain
the etiology of crime.

Watch Video Crim13:

What is Theory?

Other theories emphasize the epidemiology of crime and attempt to

explain the social, spatial, and temporal distribution of crime--for example,
questions about why crime rates are higher in urban areas than rural
areas, higher among men than women, higher in the 1960s than other
decades, and/or higher in western democracies than other world regions
are questions that are examined by theories of the epidemiology of
crime. Various types of sociological theories are often used to explain the
epidemiology of crime.

Some of the best theories of crime explain both its etiology (causes) and
its epidemiology (distribution). As shown in later chapters, social process
theories like Sutherland’s differential association theory are good
examples of theories that explain both the etiology and epidemiology of
crime.

Criminologists have also developed theories of crime events (i.e., why a

particular incident occurred at a particular place and time?). While most
criminological theories in the last two centuries have focused on
criminality (i.e., recurrent patterns of one’s criminal propensity), the
growing interest in situational crime prevention strategies (i.e., how to
make your property less attractive, accessible, available, and portable for
potential offenders) has increased attention in the last two decades on
theories of crime that identify the inhibiting and facilitating factors
underlying the occurrence of criminal acts.

Over the history of criminological thought, three dominant paradigms

(schools of crime) have been used to understand and study crime. These
paradigms or schools of criminological thought are referred to by different
names by different authors, but they are most commonly referred to as (1)
the Classical School, (2) the Positivist School, and (3) the Radical/Conflict
School. Each of these approaches are summarized below and described
more fully in the remaining lectures on theory:

Classical School: The dominant

assumption of classical
criminology is that human
behavior is produced by free will
and rational choice. From this
perspective, humans are the
masters of their own destiny and
are free to choose various
courses of action.

When applied to the study of crime, the classical theme of rational calculus
suggests that human behavior is guided by the pursuit of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain. There are many seductive aspects of crime that make it
a reasonable choice for obtaining desirable goods--it often requires less
work and skill, is more exciting, and offers greater and more immediate
payoffs than traditional or legitimate solutions to life’s problems.

For the early 18th century utilitarians like Beccaria and Bentham, the
choice of criminal solutions to these problems can be controlled by the
threat of swift, severe, and certain punishment. The ultimate solution to
crime under the classical school is to design a system of swift, certain, and
severe punishments that is of a sufficient magnitude to make crime an
unattractive choice.

Positive School: This school of

criminological thought emerged from
the application of the methods of
scientific inquiry that served as the
foundation for the work of Charles
Darwin and others who used scientific
approaches to study human
behavior. For the early positivists like
Cesare Lombroso, criminal behavior was
seen as different from non-criminal
behavior and was produced by
determinants that were internal or
external to the individual.

All theorists within this positivistic paradigm share a deterministic view of

human behavior, varying only in terms of their degree of determinism
(“hard” vs. “soft” determinism with some “free will” or choice involved)
and whether these determinants are based on biological, psychological,
sociological, economic, or environmental factors.

Criminologists who adopt this perspective focus on the identification of

particular risk factors, traits, and/or other attributes that distinguish
criminals from non-criminals. Positive criminology has been the dominant
paradigm for studying crime over most of the 20th century.

Radical/Conflict School:
The most recent paradigm for
studying crime focuses on the
relationship between crime and
the wider structure of a
society. It identifies crime as an
inevitable consequence of the
unequal distribution of power
and wealth in class-based
societies. This conflict
perspective derives from the
early writings of Karl Marx.

Followers of radical/conflict school explore how the social reality of crime

is socially constructed to legitimize the predatory acts of the powerful and
criminalize these same actions by lower class members. As an “underdog”
approach that views socially disadvantaged groups (like ethnic/racial
minorities, women, the poor) as victims, other questions addressed by
these radical/conflict criminologists involve the relationship between free
enterprise and crime, the role that government plays in the construction
of crime, and the sources of systematic and institutional biases within the
criminal justice system which contribute to racial, class, and gender based
inequality.

Application Questions:

1. Based on the Classical School of criminology, why do people

commit crime?

2. Whenever someone talks about the “risk factors” for crime and
criminality, they are applying what school/paradigm within
criminology?

3. Do radical/conflict theories of crime assume a “free will” or

“deterministic” view of criminal behavior? Give examples to
support your answer.

Chapter 10:
The Principles of Classical Criminology

Objectives:

• Know the major assumptions of classical criminology for explaining why

people commit crime and how we control it.

• Identify the properties of societal reaction (punishment) in classical

theory that should leads to law-abiding behavior.

• Know why classical and neo-classical theories are popular explanations

for crime causation and why/how we should punish offenders.

• Identify the strengths and limitations of classical theories for explaining

criminal behavior.

Classical Criminology can be easily described by its fundamental assumptions

about "free will" and human behavior. In fact, the following 5 statements and
assumptions translate into a basic “rational choice” theory about why people
commit crime and how we control it from the perspective of classical thought:

1. All people have problems and we have the free will to seek out
either conventional or illegal solutions to these problems.

2. Criminal solutions to these

problems may be preferred
over conventional solutions
because they often require
less effort, less skill, reap
more immediate rewards,
are exciting, and provide
other enticements that are
not found within
conventional behavior. So, for example, bank robbery is typically

quicker, more lucrative and more exciting (in terms of avoiding

getting caught/shot) than going to college for 6 years and trying
to climb the conventional ladder for success.

3. This choice of criminal solutions to one’s problems may be

controlled by the threat of societal reaction (punishment).

4. The more swift, certain, and severe the societal reaction

(punishment), the more likely it will deter people’s choice of
criminal solutions to these problems.

5. The most effective method of crime control is punishment that is

of a sufficient magnitude to make crime an unattractive choice.

The Contribution of Cesare Beccaria

One of the early champions of the principles of classical criminology was Cesare
Beccaria (1738-94). Beccaria was an outspoken critic of the arbitrariness of
punishments in Western Europe in the late 18th century and proposed an
alternative system of justice. Similar to the current criminal justice system in the
U.S., Beccaria’s model of justice involved a check-and-balance system that
separated law-making (legislative) and law-interpreting (judicial) branches of
government. He also developed uniform scales of punishments and criminal
acts, emphasizing that the punishment should “fit the crime” and proportionate
to the moral gravity of the offense (i.e., more severe conduct deserves more
severe punishment).

Beccaria’s ideas about the uniformity of punishments based on the crime (rather
than the social characteristics of the offender) were accepted in the U.S. as the
dominant views for punishment until the late 1800s, when rehabilitation and
individual-level treatment became a more popular basis for punishments. The
subsequent discovery in the early 1970s that rehabilitation was not working
provided the background for the resurgence of classical criminology as the
primary rationale for criminal sanctions in contemporary American society.

Popularity of Neo-Classical Criminology

Currently, the principles of classical criminology are firmly entrenched in

America’s system of punishment. The dominant philosophies for why we punish
offenders (i.e., to deter others from committing crime, incapacitate individuals in
jail/prison to make it physically impossible for them to commit further crimes,
and the retribution function of punishment) are all consistent with classical
philosophy.

Modern classical theory is called

“neo-classical” thought because it
recognizes that the punishment
should fit the crime, but it also
allows for special circumstances of
the offender (like insanity and other
individual factors) in determining
“just” punishments.

Classical criminological thought

remains a dominant paradigm for
understanding crime and its control
because this approach makes a great
deal of sense. For example, most
people readily believe that they can
do almost anything if they just try
hard enough, and that deterministic
explanations for crime (i.e., I had to
do it because of “an irresistible
impulse”, “peer-pressure”, “my poor
background”, etc.) are often viewed as a cop-out.

Unfortunately, while the basic ideas about “free choice” may dictate whether we
buy a cheeseburger or something else for lunch and other routine aspects of our
daily lives, there is also certain things that are determined by factors outside of
our control.

In fact, the major criticisms of classical criminology are (1) this failure to
recognize that there is some amount of “determinism” underlying our behavior
and (2) the failure to recognize the possibility that committing crime is a rational
response for those who have limited economic opportunities--this idea is clearly
contrary to the belief of many classical criminologists that committing crime is
“irrational” behavior because any reasonable person should know that the costs
of committing crime (e.g., death, long-term punishment, stigmatization) are far
greater than its benefits.

Yet, for those who are totally

disadvantaged and have no other
legitimate means of supporting
themselves or their families, it is
equally reasonable to assume that
crime is a rational choice for solving
the problems of everyday life.

Watch Video Crim14:

Is Crime a Rational or Irrational Choice?

Application Questions:

1. Provide separate lists of all of the potential benefits and costs that guide a
juvenile's decision to engage in various types of delinquent behavior (e.g.
skipping school, alcohol/tobacco use, vandalism, trespass). According to
classical criminology, under what conditions will this juvenile (1) commit
these delinquent acts and (2) refrain from doing them?

2. Why is crime considered an irrational choice under classical criminological

theories?

3. How would classical criminological theory explain homicides by "workplace

avengers" who kill their boss and/or coworkers at their workplace?

4. Search the Internet for "Nature vs. Nurture" and find several current
academic articles on this topic. What is the general conclusion from these
articles you read? Are criminals made by environmental experiences or
"born that way"?

Chapter 11:
Positivistic Criminology (Lombroso, Ferri, Garofalo)

Objectives:

• Know what Positivistic Criminology is and how it assumes a

deterministic explanation of human behavior.

• Identify Lombroso's 3 major types of criminals (i.e., the born criminal,

the insane criminal, the criminaloid), their major attributes, and the
most prevalent type among them.

• Know the importance of the phrase "biological structure determines

social function" and its relevance to modern biological theories of
human behavior.

• Identify the basic differences in the determinants (causes) of crime in

the works of Cesare Lombroso, Enrico Ferri, and Raffaele Garofalo.

The emergence of positive criminology is traced to the early Italian positivists:

Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909) and his students Enrico Ferri (1856-1909) and
Raffaele Garofalo (1852-1934). These theorists set into motion the idea that the
method of scientific inquiry could be used to study various “determinants” of
criminal behavior and identify the traits/attributes that distinguish criminals
from non-criminals.

Cesare Lombroso

Lombroso was a surgeon and took various biological measures of criminals and
non-criminals to explore the possible differences between them. Strongly
influenced by Charles Darwin’s ideas about the origins of the species and the
ascent of humans, Lombroso also discovered that some humans had physical
characteristics (called stigmata) that placed them at a lower stage of
evolutionary development. These "atavists" were essentially sub-humans that
were a biological throwback or reversion to our caveman ancestors. Some of the

physical traits of the atavist included

excessive hair, huge foreheads, big jaws,
swollen lips, bull-leggedness, hunch-backs,
flared nostrils, asymmetry of the face, beady
and deep-set eyes.

Through his scientific studies, Lombroso

identified 3 distinct types of criminals:

(1) the Born Criminal (who exhibited the

traits and physical stigmata of the
atavist),
(2) the Insane Criminal (who suffered
from low intelligence and serious
psychological problems/degeneracy),
and
(3) the Criminaloid (who exhibited no physical stigmata or signs of
psychological degeneracy, but who would engage in criminal behavior
when sparked by situational and environmental factors).

While many people emphasize Lombroso’s ideas about the “born criminal”, he
stated explicitly that the most common type of criminal is the criminaloid--
suggesting that in most cases you simply can’t tell whether someone is going to
be a criminal by the way they look or their psychological disposition.

By today’s standards, Lombroso’s 3-category typology of criminals is considered

to be too simple and somewhat naïve. However, Lombroso is considered the
founding member of the Positive School of Criminology and had a lasting
contribution on the current field of criminology for 2 basic reasons: (1) he was
the first person to systematically develop the idea that “biological structure
determines social function” (this idea is the basis for all modern day
biological/physiological theories of human behavior), and (2) he established the
value of multi-faceted explanations for criminal behavior by examining how a
wide variety of social and environmental factors (e.g., the price of wheat,
climate, gender, etc.) are linked to the epidemiology of crime.

Enrico Ferri

Ferri’s major contributions to positive criminology involved (1) his critique of the
classical notion of “free will” (i.e., Ferri established “determinism” as an
alternative paradigm based on this critique) and (2) his scientific investigation of
the interrelationships between social, economic, and political factors and
crime. For Ferri, the three major criminogenic (crime causing) factors included

aspects of (1) the physical environment, (2) anthropological attributes, and (3)
social factors.

Elements of the physical environment conducive to crime include an area’s

structural attributes and climate/temperature (e.g., areas with poor street
lighting, high levels of urban decay,
and hotter climates have more crime)
and geographical location (Sicilians
who live in the more southern region
of Italy were thought to be more
criminal than northern Italians).
Anthropological factors (i.e., physical
attributes of the individual) linked to
higher criminal propensity by Ferri
included one’s age (18-24 year olds),
sex (males), race (ethnic/racial
minorities) and physical structure
(strong/muscular people). Social factors included things like population density,
cultural traditions, religion, the nature of the government, and economic
conditions.

Ferri is best described as a liberal because he argued that the best way to control
crime is through various types of “social betterment” measures, including free
trade, abolition of monopolies, the redistribution of wealth, birth control,
freedom of divorce/marriage, better street lighting, public assistance, and more
public recreation.

Raffaele Garofalo

Garofalo is best known for his

work on criminal psychology and
the notion of psychological
degeneracy. Like Lombroso and
Ferri, he rejected the doctrine of
free will and supported the
position that crime can be
understood only when it is studied
by the scientific method.

For Garofalo, the sources/determinants of crime are lower intellectual abilities

and psychological pathology/degeneracy.

Garofalo was strongly influenced by Darwin’s law of adaptation and the principle
of the survival of the fittest. Similar to other organisms that evolve through the
process of natural selection and adaptation, he argued that society must
eliminate those who have shown by their criminal behavior that they can’t adapt
to civilized life. Accordingly, Garofalo strongly supported the death penalty for
those with permanent psychological anomalies and policies of segregation (e.g.,
deportation, transportation, and/or isolation) so that these criminals could not
affect the gene pool. It shouldn’t be surprising to discover that Garofalo’s views
about punishment and natural selection were fully endorsed by the Nazis and
Fascist regimes of Germany and Italy at the onset and during World War II.

By covering most of the major disciplines for studying crime (i.e., biology,
psychology, sociology), these three scholars laid a solid foundation for the more
systematic study of criminal propensity and its etiology/epidemiology. Their
work showed that, similar to studies of plants and animals in other contexts, the
scientific method of empirical observation and statistical comparisons could be
used successfully to study the determinants of criminal behavior.

Watch Video Crim15:

Scientific Method of Positivism

Application Questions:

1. How do you think Lombroso's training as a medical doctor and surgeon

influenced the nature of his theories about crime and its causes?

2. What is an atavist and how does this profile of offenders fit with
Lombroso's idea that "biological structure determines one's social
function"?

3. Which of the three early Italian positivists (Lombroso, Ferri, or Garofalo)

would be considered the most extreme as a "hard determinist"?

4. Aside from the presumed direct link between biological/physical traits

and social behavior identified by Lombroso, what other factors may
explain why the physical attributes of the atavist are associated with their
higher likelihood of being arrested for criminal behavior?

5. After watching Video 15 in this chapter, describe how the scientific method
of positivism would be used to evaluate whether greater exposure of
pornography is a causal factor in the risks of becoming a sex offender.

Chapter 12:
Biological Theories of Criminal Propensity

Objectives:

• Identify the basic characteristics of the three earliest forms of biological

theories of crime (i.e., physiognomy, phrenology, and body-type
theorists).

• Know the idea of a "self-fulfilling prophecy" and how this idea provides
an alternative explanation for the apparent link between a mesomorph
body type and criminal behavior.

• Identify how several bio-chemical factors (e.g., dopamine, serotonin,

testosterone) are linked to criminal propensity.

• Know the strengths and weaknesses of biological theories in explaining

the onset and continuation of criminal behavior and the epidemiology
of crime.

Some of the earliest explanations for criminal behavior suggest that there are
basic biological and physiological differences between criminals and non-
criminals.

These biological theories involve the

identification of various types of
biological factors that account for
individuals’ differential propensities to
engage in criminal behavior and their
persistence in it. Some of these
biological theories focus on specific
types of offending (e.g., violent crimes
like murder and rape) and the
commission of specific criminal acts,
whereas other biological approaches provide generic explanations for all types of
crimes.

The biological tradition in criminology began with a group of folks called

physiognomists (like Johan Lavater in 1775) who claimed that much could be
learned about one’s risks of being a criminal by simply examining their facial
features because “faces don’t lie”. Watch out for people with weak chins, shifty
eyes, and beak-like noses!!

These are the physical aspects of the face that physiognomists believed
differentiated criminals from non-criminals and some criminals from other types
of criminals. Later in 1791, phrenologists like Franz Gall began to look for the
causes of criminal behavior by exploring the physical configuration of the skull.
From their perspective, overly active areas within the human brain are
associated with particular activities and emotional states (e.g., assertiveness,
combativeness). The most active of compartments of the human brain are
physically revealed by lumps and bumps in particular regions of the human
skull. Phrenologists reasoned that all that was necessary to identify one's
predispositions toward violence and other behavioral patterns was a visual
inspection of the shape of one's skull. Similar to the modern-day readers of one’s
palms or tea-leafs, phrenologists often made a living by traveling circuits and
giving “head readings” for a small fee.

Watch Video Crim16:

Phrenology and Reading the Skull

While many of the particular claims of phrenologists have been proven wrong by
advances in brain research and neurophysiology, they were essentially correct
that particular locations of the brain are associated with basic functions (e.g.,
speech, memory, emotions). In fact, Franz Gall was one of the earliest Western
scholars in the field of human anatomy and physiology.

The early research by Cesare Lombroso and Charles Goring in the late 19th and
early 20th century, followed by the work of other body-type theorists (e.g.,
Earnest Hooton in the late 1930s and William Sheldon in the 1950), established
the basic idea that one’s biological structure determines our behavior
(i.e., structure determines function). This principle was evident in Darwin's
notion of atavists and Lombroso’s category of “born criminals”.

For body-type theorists like Sheldon,

the biology/crime link was due to the
causal connection between particular
body types (e.g., muscular,
mesomorphic shape) and a particular
temperament (e.g., assertive,
aggressive, boldness) that lead these
“types of people” to be prime
candidates for aggression and other
forms of criminal behavior.
In contrast, endomorphic (i.e., soft,
round physique) and ectomorphic
(i.e., lean, fragile, small) body-types
are linked to temperaments that are
assumed to be less criminogenic.

Although some research (especially studies in the 1950s by the Gleucks of 500
delinquent and non-delinquent boys) provides support for the claim that a
mesomorphic body type is linked to a greater risk of crime, it is unclear whether
the ultimate cause of this presumed link is due to the aggressive temperament of
mesomorphs or whether these kids are perceived by society as being more
aggressive and thus, through the mechanism of a “self-fulfilling prophecy”, start
to behave in a more criminal way because of these labels and expectations.
However, it is important to note that more recent research that makes other
adjustments for differences between mesomorphs and other body types has
failed to demonstrate this link between body physique and criminal propensity.

Watch Video Crim17:

Profiling Criminal Faces/Body Types?

More sophisticated and accurate representations of the causal links between

biological influences and crime have been established in the late 20th century
through the use of more rigorous research designs and statistical analyses. For
example, scientific advancements in the study of the human genetic structure
and physiology have led to dramatic growth in bio-chemical explanations for
criminal propensity. This research indicates that both dopamine and serotonin
are basic neurotransmitters of electrical impulses within the brain that are

associated with information processing and antisocial behavior. In fact, genetic

defects in dopamine and serotonin levels have been found among violent
offenders and drug abusers (Vold, Bernard, and Snipes 1998).

The causal significance of dopamine is that it

triggers emotional responses that affect our
fight or flight responses, sensation seeking
behavior, avoidance of something unpleasant,
and the ability to experience pleasure and pain
(see Miethe and Deibert 2007:18).

Serotonin's causal importance in impulsive behaviors and aggression is that it

affects such biological functions as temperature regulation, sensory perceptions,
and mood control.

Testosterone is another biochemical risk factor

for aggression, although the evidence of its
effect is often context-specific and the precise
direction of the possible causal relationship is
somewhat ambiguous (see Miethe and Deibert
2007: 19). These authors note that elevated
levels of testosterone are found in male violent
offenders, and another hormone (estradiol) has
been suggested to be important in maternal aggression.

Testosterone levels in humans peak in the mid-teens and decline over the life
course. Isolating the particular effect of testosterone on human behavior is
somewhat difficult because of the possibility of reciprocal causation (i.e., the
chicken vs. egg problem). What this means is that high testosterone levels may
predispose some individuals to behave in dominant and aggressive ways, but
behaving in these specific ways may also increase testosterone levels.

So, is testosterone a cause of aggressive or a consequence of aggression? It is

probably both.

Uncovering the genetic basis of crime has been greatly enhanced in the last half
century by the use of behavioral genetic research designs. These scientific
procedures enhance the ability to isolate the role of genetic influences and
shared environmental factors on criminality and other anti-social behavior
(Miethe and Deibert 2007:12). The primary value of this new research paradigm
is that it has (1) increased understanding of neurophysiology and other aspects
of human information processing, (2) provided the analytic means to identify the
relative magnitude of the genetic inheritability of particular traits, and (3) led to
a more complete specification of the various causal paths that link biological

processes to differences in social behavior. As a consequence of this research,

we now know that many psychological traits (e.g., being stubborn/bull-headed,
intelligence, impulsivity, sensation seeking, bullying) have a strong level of
inheritability. However, many of these traits can be modified by environmental
experiences. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude from this research that criminal
propensities are the product of both forces of nature and nurture (i.e., it is both
inherited and learned behavior).

Other bio-chemical explanations of crime focus on an assortment of additional

risk factors. These risk factors include the role of diet (e.g., sugar, caffeine, fat
consumption), vitamin/mineral deficiencies, allergies (which may affect brain
function and impulse control), and environmental factors (e.g., fluorescent
lighting, pollution, copper/lead poisoning). Starting in the 1960s, research also
began on the criminogenic effects of the XYY chromosomal abnormality and PMS
(premenstrual stress syndrome). While often serving as anecdotal evidence for
the behaviors of some serial killers (e.g. Richard Speck was falsely assumed to
possess the extra Y chromosome) and the sporadic violent outbursts by some
women, there is no credible scientific evidence to support the claim that either
XYY or PMS are predictors of particular criminal acts or criminality.

Summary of Biological Theories

As a set of theoretical principles, biological theories are best able to explain the
onset of particular criminal acts (e.g., fear-induced threats automatically trigger
various physiological responses (like changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and
respiration) that lead to the quick processing of information and a response of
fight, flight or submission). While basic biological and chemical factors may
predispose some individuals to higher risks of the onset and continuation of
criminal behavior, biological theories are limited in their ability to account for
the epidemiology of crime (i.e., its social, spatial, and temporal
distribution). Most criminologists outside the field of biology also believe that
biological theories have little value in predicting in advance the onset of criminal
behavior and distinguishing criminals from non-criminals who have the same
traits or risk factors.

Application Questions:

1. Go to the FBI's homepage on the Internet and look at the pictures of the
"most wanted" criminals. Does your visual inspection of these "most
wanted" persons provide any evidence to support the claims about the
physical traits of criminals linked to the work of physiognomists,
phrenologists, and/or other body type theories?

2. List and describe at least two different reasons why people with a
mesomorphic body type are more likely to be arrested for criminal activity
than people with other body types.

3. Search the Internet to find the specific causal mechanism by which

testosterone is linked to individual's differential propensity to commit
violent crimes. Briefly describe this causal chain.

4. How would biological theories explain the temporal or spatial distribution

of crime (e.g., the fact that incidents of violent crime are more common at
night and on weekends; the fact that urban areas and Southern states
have higher violent crime rates than rural areas and non-Southern states)?

Chapter 13:
Psychological Theories

Objectives:

• Know the difference between psychosis and neurosis.

• Identify the three components of human personality underlying

psychoanalytic theory and the causes of criminal behavior in this theory.

• Identify the basic principles underlying three types of learning theories

of criminal behavior (classical conditioning, operant conditioning, social
learning theory).

• List the strongest psychological correlates of criminal behavior based on

empirical research.

• Understand the major strengths and limitations of psychological

theories in explaining the etiology and epidemiology of crime.

When asked about the causes of crime, most

people immediately think of some personality
flaw or other psychological problem within the
individual’s head. These personality quirks and
psychological/mental defects can be identified
in diagnostic manuals (like the DSM-IV/TR) and
through clinical testing. Regardless of the
particular type of psychological theory, these
explanations for crime place primary emphasis
on its etiology and the stability and change of
criminal propensities over the individual’s life
course.

Similar to biological theories, psychological theories represent “kinds of people”

explanations for crime. In other words, psychologists like biologists seek to
identify the risk factors and causal sequences/mechanisms that lead to the onset
of criminal behavior and its persistence/desistance after this point.

Types of Mental Disorders

Psychologists generally recognize two types of mental disorders that are

associated with crime: Psychosis and Neurosis.

Psychosis is a more severe form of mental disease in

which the individual suffers from a severe break with
reality and may exhibit dangerous
behavior. Symptoms of psychosis include delusions,
hallucinations, disorganized speech, being in
catatonic state, and/or engaging in grossly
disorganized behavior. Some psychotic episodes are
brief, while others may linger and become chronic.

Most psychotics are non-violent and pose greater risks to themselves than other
people. Contrary to their typical portrayal as the most common murders in
television drama and movies, a reasonable estimate is that only about 1% of all
homicide offenders in the U.S. are considered psychotic. Even among serial
killers (people who are thought to be totally deranged because they kill at least 3
people over an extended period of time), psychosis is relatively rare--possibly
due to the fact that many psychotic people are easily identifiable and may be
placed on greater supervision by state agencies or family members before they
get the opportunity to kill at least 3 people over time.

Neurosis is a less serious form of mental

disorder and includes persons with compulsive
and obsessive behaviors, anxiety disorders like
panic attacks, agoraphobia (fear of crowds,
public places), post-traumatic stress and other
types of acute stress, and substance-abuse
disorders.

While many offenders may have some minor forms of a personality disorder
(e.g., they may exhibit some oppositional defiance, narcissism, anti-social
behavior), there is little evidence that neurotic behavior is common among
criminals--a rough guess is that neurosis represents about 4-6% of the inmate
population.

Types of Psychological Theories

There are numerous types of psychological theories of crime and

criminality. Historically, the most common psychological theories applied to the
study of crime include psychoanalytic theory, social learning theories, and
research on criminogenic traits and risk factors for criminality.

1. Psychoanalytic Theory

Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory is based on

the idea that human personality consists of three
components: the id, ego, and superego. The id is the
unconscious reservoir of irrational, anti-social, and
instinctual impulses. The superego is the conscious
and unconscious elements involving the forces of
self-criticism and moral/ethical prohibitions). The
ego is often called the great compromisers or reality
principle that attempts to mediate between the id
and superego.

For psychoanalysts, the particular interplay between

these elements of personality is what underlies
differences in human behavior (see Miethe and
Deibert 2007:12). Acts of criminal behavior and
other aberrant conduct are simply manifestations of
the psychic conflict between the id, ego, and
superego. From this perspective, criminal behavior is
thought to be the expression of basic id impulses and
a misaligned compromise between the forces of the
id and superego.

Under Freud’s psychoanalytic theory and its

extensions, the primary causes of crime and other types of aberrant behavior
include negative childhood experiences (especially poor affective relationships
with the mother or father), abnormal maturation and fixation at a stage of
emotional development, and repressed sexuality or guilt (see Aichorn 1963).
Early childhood trauma often involves sexual assaults of the child, parental
abuse, incest, and exposure of the child to sexual activity. These sources of
childhood trauma are widely recognized by psychoanalysts as major risk factors
for subsequent criminal behavior--for example, the ideas of “a cycle of violence”
in which men who are abused as children are far more likely than non-abused
men to act violently as adults is clearly consistent with these principles.

Because these factors hamper the development of an adequate superego,

negative childhood experiences and other traumas are major crime-producing
forces that provide the conditions under which the person’s ego becomes more
strongly influenced by the animalistic desires/impulses of the id.

For psychoanalytic theorists, some of the potential ways to understand and

control deviant behavior involves techniques of dream therapy and exercises in
“free association” to uncover the source of one’s fixation at an earlier stage of
psycho-sexual development.

2. Learning Theories

Nearly all social psychological theories of criminality are based on some principle
of learning. Three distinct forms of learning include (1) classical conditioning, (2)
operant conditioning, and (3) social learning.

Classical conditioning focuses on how a particular

response can be conditioned when it is paired
with an otherwise neutral stimulus. In Pavlov's
experiments with bells and dogs, the dog
salivates at the sound of the bell even when food
isn't present because it has been programmed
(i.e., conditioned) through repeated trials to get
food when the bell rings.

Similarly, the physiological cravings of a drug

addict may be heightened simply by the sight of
drug paraphernalia (e.g., spoons, hypodermic
needles) because they have been conditioned to
associate their drug high with this hardware.

More generally, under the principles of classical

conditioning, any neutral stimulus (e.g., bells,
pictures, particular gestures, verbal phrases) may
ultimately elicit a conditioned physiological
response (e.g., salvation, sexual arousal,
anger/aggression) as long as it has been
consistently paired with another stimulus (e.g.,
food, sexual foreplay, frustration) that previously
triggered that same response.

As described by Miethe and Deibert (2007:13), the basic assumption of B.F.

Skinner’s model of operant conditioning is that organisms learn to act upon their

environment by associating rewards and punishments with their own

behavior. By rewarding them with food pellets or punishing them through
electric shock for non-compliance, rats or any other animal (including humans)
can be taught to press down a lever or respond in some other desired manner.
Humans are essentially no different than other animals in how they accomplish
this type of goal-directed or instrumental learning. From this learning
perspective, the likelihood of being a street mugger, professional burglar or any
other type of offender increases with an increasing number of reinforcements.
Simply stated, operant conditioning would attribute the persistent criminal
behavior of chronic juvenile delinquents and adult offenders to the rewards and
reinforcements they get from this deviant behavior.

Social learning theory developed by Albert Bandura and his associates unites
operant conditioning and cognitive psychology. For Bandura (1973), all human
behavior (including conventional and criminal behaviors) may be reinforced not
only through actual rewards and punishments, but also vicariously through the
observation of other people’s behavior and its consequences for them. It is the
focus on vicarious learning and the high-level cognitive processes involved in the
interpretation, scripting, and modeling of human behavior that distinguishes
social learning from operant conditioning (Miethe and Deibert 2007:13).

When applied to human aggression, Bandura's social learning theory emphasizes

the importance of observational and behavioral modeling. Major contexts for
behavioral modeling include (1) familial influences (sometimes called “major
models”), (2) subcultural experiences from living in particular socio-economic
environments, and (3) symbolic models like the mass media that serve as sources
for imitation and vicarious learning (Bandura 1973).

Rather than being innate behavior, Bandura emphasizes that humans learn
aggressive responses through observation and behavioral modeling, and
maintain them as behavioral choices in subsequent situations through
reinforcement. These principles have been elaborated on more fully in Bandura’s
subsequent theories of social cognition and information processing.

As summarized by Miethe and Deibert (2007:20), Bandura's basic ideas about

social learning and social cognition that are important for understanding criminal
behavior include the following:

• Rather than mere reactive organisms shaped and driven by

external events, humans have the capacity to exercise control
over their thought processes, motivations, affect, and their own
actions to produce certain results. Proactive human agency
includes how we perceive, process, and react to potentially
violent cues and other aversive conditions.

• Humans observe aggressive behavior throughout the life cycle in

various forms. They observe it in real-life settings (e.g., at home,
in schools, at work, on the street) and vicariously in the visual
world of media (e.g., television, video, and motion
pictures). Previous exposure to violence in real life or media
portrayals is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an
individual’s subsequent commission of violent behavior.

• By observing the consequences of aggression to others, children

gradually acquire a rudimentary knowledge of certain “rules of
conduct” (e.g., that one may sometimes obtain something
desirable by using physical force). As children gain experience
with aggression and its consequences, they acquire a wider
repertoire of aggressive behaviors.

• Whether or not aggressive behaviors are acted out depends on

the anticipated rewards and punishments for various action plans.
The likelihood of aggression is higher when suitable incentives for
aggression are present and violence has been rewarding to the
person in similar situations in the past. Expectations of rewarding
outcomes and enhanced feelings of self-efficacy for successful
commission of violence serve to perpetuate aggressive responses
in future situations.

• Through repeated experiences with aggression, children develop a

more elaborate sense of the rules of aggressive conduct
prescribed by society and tend to incorporate these rules as
guides for their own behavior. These normative beliefs and
personal experiences become integrated into internal cognitive
representations that people form of their environment. The
scenarios and scripts of aggression that derive from these
processes are encoded into memory, maintained through
rehearsal, and retrieved as guides for subsequent behavior.

So, how would Bandura explain the occurrence of a violent incident? He would
focus on the person's life experiences and how the retrieval of scripts provides a
cognitive "road map" of anticipated actions and consequences that influence (1)
how to attack or counteract and its form, (2) which person or group is the
appropriate target, (3) what actions by the provocateur justify or actually require
aggressive retaliation, and (4) what situations or contexts are the ones in which
aggression is either appropriate or inappropriate (see Miethe and Deibert
2007:20). For Bandura and other social learning theorists, it is this type of
cognitive information processing that is the ultimate mechanism that enables
and constrains human actions in particular situations.

It is important to note that theories of criminal behavior that are based on the
principles of learning are not the exclusive domain of psychologists. In fact, many
sociological theories and especially those that are called "social process" theories
within a sociological tradition are also predicated on a learning theory of criminal
behavior. The most widely applied learning theories within sociology are
Sutherland's theory of differential association, Matz and Sykes' techniques of
neutralization, and Anderson's code of the street. Each of these theories will be
discussed in later lectures.

3. Criminogenic Traits and Other Risk Factors

A wide variety of personality tests and risk-assessment instruments/inventories

have been developed by psychologists and social psychologists to identify the
particular traits and characteristics associated with criminal behavior. Following
the methods of positivist science, the primary method for determining the
relative power of various risk factors for criminal propensity involves
comparative research across different groups (e.g., delinquents vs. non-
delinquents; crime desisters vs. crime persisters; sex offenders vs. other
criminals). Based on the empirical evidence, the strongest psychological
correlates of criminal behavior include the following factors: impulsivity, high
sensation seeking, high psychoticism, learning disabilities, attention deficiency
and hyperactivity (ADH), low empathy, negative affectivity, and low delayed
gratification (see Miethe, McCorkle, and Listwan 2006:12).

Among these particular risk factors, impulsivity has been recognized in several
distinct theoretical formulations as an important personality trait in criminality.
When broadly defined as the manifestation of high levels of spontaneous activity
without thinking, impatience and the constant seeking of immediate
gratification, and/or the tendency to be easily distracted (Vold et al. 1998),
impulsivity can be shown to be a primary risk factor within each of the following
theoretical developments (see Miethe et al 2006:13):

• Wilson and Herrnstein’s Crime and Human Nature (1985)

contends that weak internal inhibitions and the tendency to think
in short-term rather long-term consequences are associated with
various factors, including impulsivity, low intelligence, and
criminality.

• Walkers’ theory of “lifestyle criminals” (1990) emphasizes

impulsivity as an enduring personality trait and characterizes
these particular offenders by “a global sense of irresponsibility,
self-indulgent interests, an intrusive approach to interpersonal

relationships, and chronic violations of societal rules, laws, and

mores”.

• According to their “general theory of crime”, Gottfredson and

Hirschi (1990) contend that impulsivity is a major human trait,
along with insensitivity, self-centeredness and low intelligence,
that affects criminal propensity through their association with low
self-control.

• Moffitt’s theory of “life-course-persistent” offenders (1993)

suggests that persistent anti-social behavior is the consequence of
various neurophysiological problems during pregnancy and after
birth that ultimately result in an impulsive personality style.

4. The Criminal Personality

Over the last several decades, there has been

much speculation about whether a criminal
personality really exists. Some of these claims are
based on the profile of criminal psychopaths---
people who are viewed as aggressive, dangerous,
and anti-social individuals who act in a callous
manner and exhibit several basic personality
characteristics (i.e., higher than average
intelligence, unreliable, glibness, lacking
shame/remorse, poor insight, impersonal sexual
relations).

The existence of a “criminal personality” has been advanced by Stanton

Samenow and Samuel Yochelson. These authors suggest that this criminal
personality is primarily inherited (rather than a product of bad
nurturing/environments) and consists of individuals who are aggressive, “blood
thirsty”, angry, thrill-seekers that don’t trust anyone. However, while a small
number of criminal and sexual psychopaths are found among the criminal
population, there is no clear and definitive evidence that there is such a thing as
a distinct “criminal personality”.

The Strengths and Limitations of Psychological Theories

Psychological theories are popular theories of crime causation. They focus on the
etiology of crime (i.e., trying to explain the onset and persistence/desistance in
an offender’s behavior) and the use of these theories has led to the
development of a wide list of “risk factors” for criminal behavior. Psychological

theories seem to be most useful as explanations of the behavior of deeply

disturbed, impulsive, and destructive people. However, most research on
criminal motivation suggests that this image of deeply disturbed or psychotic
individuals who kill, rape, and pillage out of deep-seated rage is not the typical
situation in which criminal acts occur. Because Bandura’s theory of social
learning and social cognition focuses on the ordinary mechanisms by which
people learn to anticipate rewards and punishments for particular thoughts and
actions, this theory seems to be especially relevant to the study of criminality.

There are several major limitations of psychological theories. First, these

theories as a group are unable to explain or account for the epidemiology of
crime. For example, these theories have a hard time explaining why crime rates
are higher in particular countries and regions within them, why cities have higher
rates than rural areas, and why particular social groups (e.g., males, minority
group members, teenagers and young adults) are more crime prone, but not
necessarily in all contexts or for all types of crimes. Second, psychological tests
that identify particular personality traits that are presumably risk factors for
criminal behavior are often not very predictive of one’s future criminal
behavior. The research by Moffitt and others acknowledges different types of
pathways to adult criminality (e.g., some adolescents are “persisters ” through
adulthood, but most are “desisters”). While theories of impulse control through
the life course may explain why most people grow out of crime (this is called the
"age-crime curve"), existing psychological risk inventories are not very accurate
in predicting differences among juveniles who are persisters and desisters.

Watch Video Crim18:

Profiling Persisters and Crime Desisters

Application Questions:

1. Why are people who are psychotic rarely found among those
arrested for crime?

2. What are two major causes of criminal behavior under

psychoanalytic theory? How do these factors explain someone’s
criminal behavior?

3. How would Bandura’s social learning theory and the principles of

behavioral modeling explain the intergenerational persistence of
violence (i.e., the tendency for violent parents who physically
abuse their kids and other people to have kids who become violent
in late adolescence and adulthood)?

4. If you could design and give a risk assessment instrument to 7th and
8th graders, list 5 factors that you would definitely include in this
instrument to predict which juveniles are going to become
delinquents and/or adult offenders. Why is each of these factors
important in predicting future criminal behavior?

5. Pick a particular psychological theory and describe how it explains

the higher rate of criminality that is often found among males than
females.

Chapter 14:
Sociological Theories (Social Structural Theories)

Objectives:

• Know the difference between macro-level and micro-level sociological

theories.

• Explain how macro-level sociological theories are determinist

explanations for higher rates of crime among particular groups of people
and in particular geographical areas.

• Know how the principles of social disorganization theory and the

concentric zone hypothesis explain the higher rates of crime in socially
disadvantaged areas.

• Identify the basic elements of the following structural/cultural theories:

Miller’s “focal concerns” and Anderson’s “code of the street”.

• Identify the major components of Merton’s “anomie theory” and Cloward

and Ohlin’s “differential opportunity theory”.

Overview of Sociological Theories

Biological and psychological theories focus on intra-individual factors that locate

the causes of crime in "kinds of people" and personal pathologies. In contrast,
sociological theories focus on "kinds of conditions" that enable and constrain
criminal motivations.

Sociological theories have been developed to explain both the etiology and
epidemiology of crime. These theories attempt to answer such questions as: (1)
why are some geographical areas more crime prone than others, and what are
the characteristics of these “hot spots” for crime?, (2) why are street crimes (like
murder, assaults, robbery, thefts) predominantly a young male problem?, (3)
how do socio-economic changes (e.g., increases in unemployment, poverty,
ethnic/racial diversity, and greater population mobility) affect national and

regional crime rates?, and (4) what are the risk factors and social processes
involved in the onset and persistence of criminal behavior? Sociological theories
are often distinguished according to their unit of analysis (called macro- or
micro-level theories).

Macro-level sociological theories

focus on explaining crime rates across
geographical units (e.g., countries,
states, cities, neighborhoods) and
emphasize how social structural
conditions in the wider society
determine various types of human
behavior.

Examples of macro-level theories that will be described below and

discussed in most textbooks include Social Structural Theories (like
Social Disorganization Theory, Anomie Theory, Differential Opportunity
Theory) and Conflict Theories (like Instrumental/Structural Marxism,
Radical Feminism, Power-Control Theories).

Micro-level sociological theories

emphasize how an individual’s criminal
behavior is produced by the social
psychological interactions with other
people and the social processes that
both enable and constrain criminal
motivations.

These theories are often classified as Social Process Theories and include
the following subtypes within them: (1) social learning approaches (like
Differential Association Theory, the Techniques of Neutralization), (2)
control theories (like Social Bond theory, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s
General Theory of Crime”), and (3) interactionist/labeling theories (like
Lemert’s theory of Secondary Deviance).

The final type of sociological theories focuses on the criminal act as the
unit of analysis. These theories consider criminal acts as “events” that
have a beginning, middle, and end.

From this crime event perspective, criminal acts require the convergence
of three necessary conditions in time and space: (1) a motivated
offender, (2) a suitable target or victim, and (3) a facilitating context for
this act to occur. Because the convergence of these three conditions
creates criminal opportunities, another name for these theories of crime

is “criminal opportunity” theories. Examples of these crime

event/criminal opportunity theories include symbolic interactionist
theories of deviant acts and routine activity/lifestyles theories of criminal
victimization.

Social Structural Theories

Social structural theories are based on the assumption that structural conditions
in a society enable and constrain human behavior. Some of these theories
assume that the fundamental cause of crime is cultural conflict (i.e., the
diversity of cultural values, beliefs, and/or norms that are found in
heterogeneous societies). Other social structural theories presume that we all
share the same values (e.g., the “American Dream” is to make lots of money),
but resort to criminal behavior because we are blocked from achieving this
shared goal of material success through legitimate means.

The best examples of structural theories that attribute crime to cultural conflict
or distinct values among different social groups are (1) Shaw and McKay’s social
disorganization theory and the concentric zone theory of city structure, (2)
Miller’s theory about the “focal concerns” of lower class boys, and (3) Wolfgang
and Ferracuti’s “subculture of violence” theory. In contrast, the best examples of
structural theories that assume value consensus (i.e., that people share the same
cultural values) are (1) Merton’s anomie theory and (2) Cloward and Ohlin’s
differential opportunity theory. These structural theories cab be found below.

1. Social Disorganization Theory and the Chicago Ecological School

For sociologists and geographers, the

city of Chicago in the early 1900s was
a virtual laboratory. As was true of
many U.S. cities at this time, Chicago
was experiencing massive social
changes, including dramatic
population growth, increased ethnic
and racial diversity (due to mass
migration of rural and poor people
from Europe, Asia, and southern
states), and the emergence of
numerous social problems (e.g.,
poverty, poor health care,
vice/corruption, and rampant crime).

Although from an outsider’s view the city of Chicago by the early 1920s looked in
complete disarray and chaos, several people (like Robert Ezra Park, Robert
Burgess, Henry Shaw and Clifford McKay) began to see some systematic patterns
within this apparently disorganized city and their observations ultimately
established what is called Social Disorganization Theory, the Concentric Zone
Hypothesis, and the Chicago Ecological School.

According to Shaw and McKay’s social disorganization theory, crime is located

within particular geographical areas because it is the consequence of three social
forces that are found in these areas: (1) high population mobility/turnover, (2)
low socio-economic opportunities, and (3) racial/ethnic diversity. The crime-
producing effect of these factors is that they lead to cultural conflict (i.e., a clash
of values/beliefs), low community involvement in monitoring and supervising
youth, the weakening of bonds to mainstream society, and the establishment of
surrogate institutions (like gangs) that provide for the disadvantaged within
these areas. The end result of these social forces is higher rates of crime. To
stop crime and the cycle of cumulative disadvantage in low-income areas, social
disorganization theory suggests that we increase the collective efficacy of these
disadvantaged neighborhoods by community outreach activities, job fairs,
improved educational services, and enhance the feelings of community pride
and social integration within these neighborhoods.

As the primary leaders of the Chicago Ecological School, Park and Burgess
developed a theory of city development that explains the ecological structure of
cities and the particular social forces and mechanisms that lead to higher rates of
crime in particular locations within cities.

The theory is called the

Concentric Zone Hypothesis (or
the zonal hypothesis for short)
and it has been successfully
applied as an explanation for
the social structure of the city
of Chicago and virtually ever
other city (no matter how large
or small) in the world.

According to zonal hypothesis,

cities initially grow from their
center and then move outward
in a successive series of circles
(concentric zones). The center
of the city is called the Central
Business District (CBD) and

this is where all major businesses (banks, stores) were initially located. This CBD
area is the Loop area in Chicago. Surrounding the CBD is an area called the zone
in transition (ZIT)--this transitional area often contains an industrial/factory
district (that is now often abandoned and vandalized) and the general area is
best represented by decaying buildings and other physical structures that are on
the verge on demolition or implosion as soon as the CBD expands. The ZIT is
really the slum area of the city, and many poor people live in this area because
(1) the rent is cheap and (2) they minimize their travel time to work in the CBD
and industrial area by living close to it. Owners of property in the ZIT don’t invest
a lot of money or effort in maintaining these properties because the buildings
have low resale value but the land is expensive. So, to cover the high taxes on
the land, slumlords will charge cheap rent, not fix anything wrong, and cram as
many people as possible in these buildings to compensate for the high taxes. For
the Chicago ecologists, these types of market mechanisms (i.e., high land value
and low property value) are why there are slum-like areas in all major cities.

Surrounding the ZIT are several additional rings or zones: (1) an area of multiple
unit dwellings (MUD) and large apartment complexes--Park and Burgess called
this the zone of “workingmen’s homes”, (2) an area of single unit dwellings
(SUD) or what Park/Burgess called the “residential zone” (an area of middle-
class, single family homes), and (3) a “commuter zone “(CZ) or what is also
sometimes called the zone of “estate lot housing” (i.e., large homes of the
managerial and upper class). Over time, cities have developed alternative
patterns of growth that are distortions of the original zonal hypothesis—for
example, the construction of transportation arteries and beltways around cities,
neighborhood shop malls, and geographical obstacles (lakes, mountains) often
lead to the emergence of separate zonal patterns around them. Nonetheless, the
basic structure of most cities still fits this configuration of urban areas that
underlies the concentric zone theory.

Applications of the zonal hypothesis

and the examination of crime
statistics indicate that the highest
rates of crime in most cities occur
within the ZIT area.
For the Chicago ecologist, the ZIT is
a natural area for crime and other
types of deviance because (1) it is
close to the CBD where all expensive
goods, financial businesses, and rich
people are working (so offenders
can dash in and out of the ZIT to the
CBD to commit crimes and then
blend into the ZIT), (2) the ZIT is where most socially disadvantaged individuals

live and where police only loosely patrol the outside boundaries of these areas,
and (3) the ZIT is characterized by social disorganization (i.e., high population
turnover, ethnic/racial diversity, low economic opportunity), the type of social
conditions that are often thought to be associated with crime.

Several crime patterns identified by the early Chicago sociologists and ecologists
between the 1920s and 1940s are still relevant to understanding contemporary
patterns of crime:

(1) they found that crime was highest in the ZIT and decreased as you moved
outward to the other zones of the city--this pattern is repeatedly found when
examining police data on the location of crime even when looking at current
crime patterns in cities today,
(2) the distribution of crime across areas of the city are similar to the distribution
of other social problems in these geographical areas (e.g., drug/alcohol
problems, unemployment, poverty), and
(3) particular areas of cities (ZIT areas) remain “hot spots” for crime regardless of
the ethnic/racial profile of the residents.

For example, in the city of Chicago, the high-crime areas were first occupied by
Italians and then these areas were replaced successively by Germans, Blacks,
Puerto Ricans, and various other social groups. No matter what ethnic/racial
group lives in these areas, the crime rate remained high in them.

Watch Video Crim19:

GIS Maps of High Crime Areas

2. Walter Miller’s “Focal Concerns”

According to Walter Miller, lower class boys

are more prone to crime than middle class
boys because they place more importance
on particular values that are associated with
crime. These distinct “focal concerns”
(values) of lower class boys include the
following:

• Toughness -- having a physical toughness, a willingness to fight;

being soft or sentimental is devalued.

• Trouble -- high value is placed on getting in and staying out of

trouble. These actions confer the status of being able to handle
yourself.

• Smartness -- being streetwise and able to outfox or outcon

someone else. Academic or “book” knowledge is devalued.

• Excitement -- the search for fun and excitement to liven up an

otherwise boring life. Excitement includes gambling, fighting,
sexual adventures, and other ways of getting in trouble.

• Fate -- a belief that life is guided by things outside of your control,

so these teenagers and young adults take more chances to get
lucky or “hit the jackpot”.

• Autonomy -- high value is placed on personal freedom, being

“your own man” and not being under the control of anyone like
parents or police. Presumably, you are not “tough” if you are
controlled by others.

While Miller’s idea that these distinct values of lower class boys leads to their
greater involvement in criminal behavior may sound somewhat reasonable,
there is no clear evidence that the values or “focal concerns” of lower class boys
are different from any other types of teenagers. In other words, both middle and
upper class boys and girls also tend to value these same things (e.g., trouble,
toughness, smartness, excitement, etc.). So, if all teenagers share these same
values, Miller’s theory of focal concerns can’t really explain the presumed
greater involvement of lower class boys in criminal behavior. This idea that lower
class boys are more criminal than other social classes is also questionable, given
the results of many self-report studies that show very few social class differences
in delinquent and criminal acts. Miller used police data on delinquency to
establish his theory in the late 1950s--We now know that police and juvenile
court data are often biased against lower class kids who lack the resources and
connections to have their delinquent and criminal behaviors treated through
informal means (e.g., counseling, treatment) outside of formal legal processing
within the criminal justice system.

3. The Subculture of Violence Theory and the “Code of the Street”

The idea of a “subculture of violence” was initially developed by Marvin

Wolfgang and Franco Ferracuti in the late 1960s to account for the relatively high

rates of violence in Sicily. This theory has been extended to account for the high
rates of violence in southern U.S. states (a “southern” subculture of violence),
violence within the sport of hockey, and the pockets of violence within inner-
cities that are committed by young, minority males.

According to this theory, interpersonal violence is an expression of subcultural

norms and values. Within particular social groups and physical locations (e.g.,
poor, inner-city neighborhoods), there is a presumed way of life and value
system (i.e., a “subculture”) in which violence is an expected, tolerated, and an
even demanded means of settling disputes (Miethe and Deibert 2007:25). For
persons within these subcultures, there are distinct interpretations of what
constitutes an anger-provoking stimuli (e.g., a physical gesture [like giving
someone the middle finger, "throwing down" one's hands] or a minor verbal
insult is interpreted as “fighting words” or a deliberate affront to one's
masculine identity). Wolfgang and Ferracuti contend that these pro-violent
values and beliefs are learned at home by how parents discipline their kids and
they are reinforced in childhood play, on schoolyards, and in daily activities on
the street.

Elijah Anderson’s “code of the street” (1999)

reflects a similar idea about how violence is
learned and reinforced in particular
geographical areas and within particular
cultural traditions. In fact, Anderson claims
that being “street” and standing up for
oneself is a functional imperative for many
inner city youth. The quick resort to violence
and the defense of one’s rep are learned
survival strategies in these particularly high-
crime areas (Miethe et al. 2006:18).

Outside of these areas, inner-city kids learn to “code switch” and act like “decent
folks”. However, when they are in public places in these disadvantaged
neighborhoods, violence is both enabled and constrained by the normative rules
of engagement and disengagement that underlie this “code of the street.”

To Anderson (1999), this code of the street is an unwritten and informal set of
rules that have emerged in inner-city communities as a response to various
social problems (e.g., the lack of “living wage” jobs, racial prejudice and
discrimination, isolation, and alienation). This code is reflected in street
verbalizations like “watch your back”, “protect yourself”, “don’t punk out”,
“respect yourself” and “if someone disses you, you gotta straighten them
out”. Violence is relatively common in these inner-city areas because they are
staging areas for demonstrating, maintaining, and/or enhancing one’s reputation

as someone who can handle themself and shouldn’t be messed with (see Miethe
and Deibert 2007:27).

4. Merton's Anomie/Strain Theory

Without question, one of the most influential macro-level explanations for crime
in American society is Robert Merton's anomie theory. This theory attributes
high crime rates directly to the social structure and culture of this society.
According to Merton (1938), American society places
enormous cultural value on the achievement of
material success (being rich, profits), but the
legitimate social structural or institutional means of
achieving this goal are limited. This resulting "strain"
between cultural goals and structural means of
achieving them is especially concentrated among
persons in the lower class. Merton (1938) uses the
term “anomie” to refer to this contradiction between
the cultural message and the social structure of
society.

According to Merton’s theory, there are various modes of adaptation to this

anomic friction between the cultural goals and the institutionalized means of
achieving them. These possible adaptations to strain include conformity (i.e., the
acceptance of both the goals and means), innovation (i.e., the acceptance of the
goals of success but rejection of the legitimate means of achieving it), ritualism
(i.e., the rejection of the goals but the acceptance of the normative means),
retreatism (i.e., the rejection of both goals and means), and rebellion (i.e.,
replacing the goals and means with new ones). This state of anomie may be
experienced by any social group, but Merton's theory focuses on the particular
strains of lower class life that may account for high rates of crime-producing
adaptations (e.g., innovation, retreatism, rebellion) within this segment of
society (Miethe et al. 2006:17).

Merton's original version of anomie theory was exclusively a macro-level theory

of crime. However, its basic principles have been extended over time to cover
other units of analysis and the role of non-economic institutions in the
production of crime. For example, Robert Agnew (1992) has developed a general
strain theory at the individual-level of analysis that focuses on the association
between negative relationships with significant others, negative emotions, and
an individual's involvement in crime.

Messner and Rosenfeld (1994) have also proposed an “institutional” anomie

theory that identifies the influence of other institutions (e.g., family, schools, and
political structures) on crime rates and their distribution.

Gary LaFree's (1998) research that demonstrates that period-specific declines in

the legitimacy of various social institutions are associated with temporal changes
in the U.S. crime rates is another contemporary example of the extension of the
basic principles of Merton's anomie theory.

5. Cloward and Ohlin’s Differential Opportunity Theory

According to anomie theory, opportunities to achieve success through legitimate

means are stratified in our society so that some people can only achieve the
“American Dream” by illegitimate methods (e.g., becoming innovators,
retreatist, rebelling). To Cloward and Ohlin, however, the opportunities to
achieve this dream of financial success through illegitimate ways is also stratified
-- in other words, there is differential opportunity for both legitimate and
illegitimate pathways to living the American Dream.

Under this differential opportunity theory, individuals may respond to strain and
achieve some material success through their differential access to illegitimate
opportunities. In fact, these theorists argue that some juveniles and young adults
are recruited into “gangs” because they provide these illegitimate
opportunities. There are 3 distinct types of “gangs” or criminal organizations in
which some juveniles may achieve some success:

• criminal gangs provide its recruits some monetary gain through

organized criminal activities—the particular juveniles/young adults
who are recruited into these crime syndicates have particular skills
(e.g., crafty, smooth, fearless, trustworthy) that provide a limited
opportunity for them to achieve some material success.

• conflict gangs provide only a

very small number of
juveniles and young adults
access to material success by
being the “tough guy” or
“enforcer”. Because only a
small number of enforcers are
needed for any criminal
organization, the illegal
opportunities for success
through this means are
extremely limited.

• retreatist gangs involve juvenile and young adults who are called
“double losers”. Criminal organizations provide no illegitimate
opportunities for them and they are blocked from achieving success
goals through legitimate avenues. They get high and drunk (i.e.,
retreat) because of this failure in both domains.

From the perspective of crime control policy, this theory of differential

opportunity is important because it suggests that to reduce criminal motivations
and behavior all you have to do is provide greater legitimate opportunities for
people to achieve their dreams. Programs like Head Start and Mobilization of
Youth have been used over the last several decades to enhance these legitimate
opportunities for disadvantaged kids.

Changing people’s values is often difficult to do. However, because this theory
presumes that most people want to live the American dream of economic
success, it suggests that the simpler pathway to a crime-free society is by
providing greater legitimate opportunities for everyone.

Application Questions:

1. Under social disorganization theory, high rates of crime in

disorganized neighborhoods are the consequence of what three
social forces that are commonly found in these communities?

2. Why are crime rates higher in the zone in transition (ZIT) than
other areas of cities?

3. How do theories like the subculture of violence and the “code of

the street” explain the high rates of violence among particular
groups and within particular geographical areas?

4. Based on Merton’s anomie theory, explain the type of crime-

producing adaptations to strain that are used by lower class
members to achieve the “American Dream”.

5. Based on Cloward and Ohlin’s differential opportunity theory,

what are the major differences in the social conditions and
recruitment opportunities associated with the formation of
“criminal gangs” and “conflict gangs”?

Chapter 15:
Sociological Theories (Social Process Theories)

Objectives:

• Know the basic principles underlying Sutherland’s theory of differential

association.

• Know the major techniques of neutralization under Matza and Syke’s

theory and how these cognitive justifications enable people to engage in
criminal behavior.

• Identify the key elements underlying Hirschi’s social bond theory and the
general theory of crime developed by Gottfredson and Hirschi.

• Understand why labeling theory contends that efforts to control crime

through the criminal justice system may do more harm than good.

• Know how social process theories are used to explain both the etiology
and epidemiology of crime.

Social process theories cover a wide variety of explanations for criminal behavior
that focus on the interaction between the individual and his/her
environment. These theories explore how people learn criminal behavior,
neutralize the stigma of engaging in criminal behavior, and rationalize their
conduct. Major risk factors for criminal behavior under these theories include
peer group pressure, family problems, poor school performance, stigmatization
processes, and the learning of pro- and anti-crime values.

When compared to most social structural theories, social process theories are
relatively unique because they assume that all individuals (not just members of
the lower class) have the potential to become criminals. In other words, these
micro-level sociological theories presume that all of us have criminal
potential/propensities if we are able to easily rationalize our conduct, have
attitudes and experiences that are supportive of criminal conduct, have learned

that criminal behavior may be rewarded, have weakened our attachments to

friends and family, and/or have been labeled and stigmatized by formal
authorities. The different subtypes of social process theories that focus on the
principles of social learning, social bonds and other control mechanisms, and
labeling/interaction approaches are summarized below.

1. Differential Association Theory

Edwin Sutherland’s theory of differential association is the most well-known

theory in criminology. Sutherland developed this theory over various editions of
his book Criminology between the years 1934 and 1947. The basic principles that
under this theory are revealed in the 9 propositions summarized below:

As revealed by the reference to "learning" in 6 of the 9 propositions,

Sutherland's theory is essentially a learning theory of crime's etiology and
epidemiology. It emerged during a historical period in which it was common to
view crime as innate (inborn) behavior. Sutherland's writings were incredibly
influential because his work challenged the prevailing thought that (1) crime was
an inherited trait that led to a genetic predisposition toward criminality, (2)
crime was a lower class phenomena (because his work on white collar criminals
dispelled this myth), and (3) poverty and greed caused crime (because as stated
in proposition #9, these general conditions and/or needs can't explain crime
because they also explain non-criminal behaviors).

For Sutherland, the learning of criminal behavior does not occur simply through
a process of osmosis or imitation. Instead, people learn criminal and
conventional behavior through their active participation in a process of
communication. Similar to what Bandura would later call "major models",
Sutherland argued that the primary context for learning was with "significant
others" (i.e., family, close friends) in intimate personal groups. Within this
general learning context, criminals learn both the physical and cognitive aspects
of behavior. So, for example, any decent criminal must learn the physical “tools
of the trade” (e.g., how to disable burglar alarms, override car ignition switches,
how and where to buy drugs, how to solicit customers for prostitution, how to
launder money through legitimate financial outlets, etc.) and the cognitive
aspects of crime commission (e.g., how to rationalize hurting other people, how
to diffuse responsibility for one's actions, and/or otherwise legitimize one's
behavior). To Sutherland, it is our learning of pro- and anti-crime definitions
from these significant others, the relative magnitude of these pro-crime
definitions (i.e., the frequency, duration, priority, and intensity relative to anti-
crime feelings/attitudes), and daily life experiences in highly diverse societies
that underlie the onset of criminal behavior, its persistence, and variation in this
behavior over social groups, space, and time.

Under Sutherland’s theory, the

fundamental cause of criminal behavior is
cultural conflict that exists in highly
pluralistic societies. This cultural conflict
involves essentially “mixed messages”
about the appropriateness of particular
conduct (i.e., whether pro- or anti-crime
definitions are the values espoused by
significant others).

Under this causal framework and its extension to aggregate units, individuals,
groups (e.g., males rather than females) and physical locations (e.g., ethnically
diverse inner city areas versus rural towns) that have an excess of pro-crime

definitions are most susceptible to criminality and higher rates of criminal

behavior (Miethe et al. 2006:14).

For most sociologists and criminologists, there are several reasons why
differential association theory remains a dominant explanation for individuals’
criminal propensity and crime rates across social groups. First, it is a general
theory of crime that is applicable to all forms of criminal behavior (e.g., street
crime and white-collar crime). Second, it spans multiple units of analysis,
explaining an individual’s likelihood of offending by processes of differential
association and explaining crime rates by identifying groups and physical
locations that should be prone to higher levels of crime because of their
differential social organization (i.e., relative level of cultural/normative conflict).
Third, the theory is appealing to most social scientists because of its emphasis on
learning rather than innate predispositions as causal forces for human behavior
(Miethe et al. 2006:14).

2. Sykes and Matza’s Techniques of Neutralization

The cognitive aspects of learning that are included under Sutherland's

differential association theory are more clearly articulated in the work of
Gresham Sykes and David Matza (1957) on
the techniques of neutralization. Under
this theoretical formulation, criminals and
non-criminals share the same views about
the wrongfulness of various conduct, but
they have developed various cognitive
techniques to nullify or neutralize these
crime-inhibiting feelings. By learning these
types of "self deceptions" (i.e.,
rationalizations, neutralizations), a person
can selectively weaken the controls exerted by conventional values about
appropriate conduct, providing the individual offender with the freedom to drift
back and forth from conventional to deviant behavior.

Watch Video Crim20:

Neutralization Techniques

According to Sykes and Matza (1957), the primary techniques of neutralization

involve:
(1) denial of responsibility (e.g., “it wasn’t my fault”),
(2) denial of injury (e.g., “they can afford it”, "I didn't hurt anyone"),
(3) denial of victim (e.g., “they had it coming”),
(4) condemn the condemners (e.g., “everyone else is doing the same thing”),
(5) appeal to a higher loyalty (e.g., “I did it to feed my family”).

By using these cognitive neutralizations, offenders are able to define the

situation in such a way to participate in criminal behavior and yet maintain a
non-criminal self-image. The use of these techniques of neutralization has no
gender or class boundaries. Sykes and Matza's ideas have been applied in a
variety of contexts, including studies of street criminals (e.g., shoplifters,
prostitutes, rapists, serial killers) and white collar or corporate offenders (e.g.,
embezzlers, inside traders, ponzi-scheme defrauders).

3. Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory

A very simple and straightforward social process theory of criminal behavior is

Travis Hirschi’s (1969) “social bond” theory. According to this type of control
theory, people with strong bonds to social groups like family, peers, schools, and
religious organizations are less likely to commit criminal acts.

Hirschi argues that human nature is inherently evil

(i.e., we are hedonistic, self-serving animals) and
that the major bonds that control these natural
predispositions include attachments to family and
friends, commitment or “stakes in conformity”,
involvement in conventional activities (i.e., the
amount of time we have available for illegal
activities), and beliefs about obeying the rules of
society. When these bonds are disrupted in any
way, Hirschi's bond theory predicts that individuals
will follow their basic criminal nature.

While this theory was originally developed to explain differences in juvenile's

risks of delinquency, it has been widely applied to explain (1) the onset and
episodic nature of various types of criminal behavior (e.g., why major changes in
one's life [e.g., divorce/separation, loss of work] leads people to temporarily
engage in aggressive and otherwise disruptive behavior), (2) the age-crime curve
(i.e., persons between 18 and 24 are the most crime prone because they have
the weakest bonds of any age group), and (3) other group differences in crime
rates (e.g., U.S. has higher crime rates than most countries because the bonds of

religion, family, and uniform value system are weaker in the U.S. than in other
industrialized countries that are less diverse [e.g., Japan, France, Norway]).

4. Gottfredson and Hirschi’s “General Theory of Crime”

Under Gottfredson and Hirschi‘s (1990) "General Theory of Crime", there are
two types of control systems that regulate human behavior: (1) “social controls”
that are primarily external to the individual and (2) “self-control” that is internal
to the individual.

External social controls (e.g., attachments to parents, involvement in school) are

important in this theory only in terms of how they affect early socialization
processes that leads to one's self control. As a relatively stable trait that is
instilled in individuals around the age of eight, Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990)
major premise is that variation in self-control accounts for differences in criminal
propensity.

Under their general theory of crime, low-

self control and available criminal
opportunities are considered sufficient
factors for explaining all major forms of
criminal activity. Gottfredson and Hirschi
further assert that many of the factors
often associated with crime (e.g., low
intelligence, poor school performance,
low impulse control, peer involvement,
the age-crime curve) are either indicative
of or direct consequences of low self-
control.

From their perspective, all that is necessary to explain the onset of criminal
behavior, the age-crime curve, and social differences in offending is knowledge
of the nature of differences in self control.

Research over the last several decades has shown mixed, but generally
supportive, evidence of the criminogenic influence of low self control. However,
Gottfredson and Hirschi's claim of a general theory of crime that applies equally
to all types of criminal behavior is far more questionable (see Williams and
McShane 2010: 208). For example, contrary to the claims of "general theory",
the research on white collar criminals often finds that these offenders are
qualitatively distinct from other types of criminals in their criminal motivations,
age-crime curve, and/or patterns of persistence and desistence.

5. Labeling Theory

Labeling theory emerged in the late 1950s and

early 1960s as a controversial perspective on the
relationship between social control efforts and
criminal behavior. Under most theories, state
control efforts through the threat and
application of formal punishment (e.g.,
probation, jail time, prison sentences) are
presumed to have a deterrent effect by reducing
one’s initial likelihood of engaging in criminal
acts and their subsequent criminality.

Labeling theory, in sharp contrast, is based on the idea that formal social control
efforts may actually do more harm than good by (1) stigmatizing/labeling the
individual as no good and/or worthless, (2) closing off their opportunities for
reintegration back into mainstream society, and (3) ultimately leading the
labeled person to develop a deviant self-concept and behaving in ways that are
consistent with this label. This theory of subsequent deviance after formal
intervention was developed by Edwin Lemert and is called the theory of
secondary deviance.

For labeling theorists like Edwin Lemert and

Howard Becker, the onset of criminal behavior
(called “primary deviance”) and subsequent
criminal acts that occur after formal social
control efforts for the primary deviance (called
“secondary deviance”) may be explained by
totally different theoretical perspectives.

However, what is important to them is the crime-producing effects of formal

legal actions by the police and courts. In particular, labeling theorists contend
that high rates of recidivism (i.e., secondary deviance after initial formal action)
are the result of crime-producing effects of stigmatizing these individuals, closing
off alternatives for them, and increasing their likelihood of developing a deviant
self-image.

To break out of this cycle of secondary deviance, labeling theories recommend

such crime control programs as decriminalization, deinstitutionalization, and
diversion of “criminal cases” away from formal handling within the criminal
justice system.

Labeling theory was a popular anti-establishment approach for understanding

crime that emerged from the tumultuous era of the early 1960s. Even though
the evidence to support its principles is fairly weak, labeling theory has had
major implications for criminology because it makes us think seriously about the
unintended and/or adverse consequences of the continued use of the criminal
justice system for incapacitating and possibly stigmatizing for life those who have
violated criminal laws. For many minor offenses of drug offending and petty
theft, labeling theory suggests that we look for alternative ways for dealing with
these offenses.
Application Questions:

1. How would Sutherland’s theory of differential association

explain why a particular person commits a crime and why men
have higher involvement in criminal activities than women?

2. Given that all university students know that cheating on graded

material is wrong, what are the particular techniques of
neutralization used by some students to convince themselves
that cheating is justifiable?

3. How is Hirschi’s social bond theory different from other social

process theories in its assumptions about human nature?

4. How does labeling theory and the theory of secondary deviance

explain why arrested persons in the U.S. have a 60-80%
recidivism rate (i.e., they repeat their involvement in criminal
behavior)?

Chapter 16:
Sociological Theories (Social Conflict Theories)

Objectives:

• Know the type of issues about crime and criminal justice examined by
social conflict theories.

• Identify the general principles underlying Quinney's "The Social Reality

of Crime".

• Know the basic ideas underlying the following social conflict theories:
Instrumental Marxism, Structural Marxism, and Feminist Theories.

Various types of social conflict theories have been used to explain differences in
crime rates across countries and other social groups. These theories explore such
issues as:

(1) the relationship between free enterprise and crime,

(2) the role of government in the social production of crime,
(3) how the mass media is used to spread a particular image of the “social
reality” of crime and criminals,
(4) the social, political, and economic forces that underlie differential treatment
in the criminal justice system based on race, gender and class, and
(5) how both capitalism and patriarchy work to subjugate women and increase
female criminality.

One of the most popular conceptualizations of social conflict theories is

represented in Richard Quinney’s book The Social Reality of Crime (1970). From
Quinney’s perspective, an understanding of crime requires an examination of
how definitions of crime are constructed and applied in a society. The following 5
propositions summarize the essence of his theoretical/conceptual approach:

1. Definition of Crime: Crime is a definition of human conduct that is

created by authorized agents in a politically organized
society. Criminality is constructed by the labeling of one’s

behavior as criminal by others. This is what is often called a

“reactionist” definition of deviance/crime—it typically assumes
that nothing is inherently or innately criminal—instead, all
criminal acts and criminality is socially constructed.

2. Formulation of Criminal Definitions: Criminal definitions describe

behavior that conflicts with the interests of those segments of
society that have the power to shape public policy… Criminal
definitions (i.e., laws) represent the interests of those who hold
the power and wealth in a society. Where there is conflict
between groups (e.g., rich vs. poor), those who hold power will
create laws to benefit themselves and hold rival groups in check.

3. Application of Criminal Definitions: Criminal definitions are

applied by the segments of a society with the power to shape the
enforcement and administration of criminal law…. The interests of
powerful groups involve the definition of what should be
considered “crime” and how it should be administered
(enforced).… The more legal agents evaluate behavior and
persons as worthy of criminal labels, the greater the probability
that such labels will be applied.

4. Development of Behavior Patterns in Relation to Criminal

Definitions: Behavioral patterns are structured in relation to
criminal definitions. People who are not members of the power
structure are more likely to develop behavior patterns that will
have criminal labels attached to them...

5. Once one is defined as “criminal”, the individual will develop a

deviant self-view, learn to play the role of criminal, and increase
his/her probabilities of later behavior being defined as
criminal. (Note: this is the central idea of labeling theory and the
theory of secondary deviance).

6. Construction of Criminal Conceptions: Conceptions of crime are

constructed and distributed in societies by various means of
communication. People create their own realities by the kinds of
knowledge they have, the ideas and information they are expose
to, and how they interpret this information.

Attitudes about crime and criminals develop and are spread

through mass communication channels--Those in power are able
to spread their “reality” to others and they can shape public
opinion so that it agrees with their definition of crime. Thus, the

conceptions of crime held by those in power become the social

reality of crime.

When these propositions are combined, Quinney’s perspective indicates that the
“social reality of crime” is constructed by the formulation and application of
criminal definitions, the development of behavioral patterns in relation to these
criminal definitions, the construction of criminal definitions by the powerful, and
the dissemination of these images of crime through the mass media (e.g.,
television, print media).

Watch Video Crim22:

Media Coverage and Crime Images

For Quinney and many other conflict theorists, crime is seen as an inevitable
consequence of the unequal distribution of power and wealth in class-based
societies. The crime-producing effect of capitalism over other economic systems
is attributed to its alienation of workers, the insatiable greed and profit-
motivation that capitalism produces, and the greater means used to control the
“dangerous” classes and preserve/protect the interests of the ruling class.

For those conflict theorists that adopt an Instrumental Marxist perspective, the
criminal law and the criminal justice system are instruments for the
suppression/control of the poor and for maintaining and perpetuating the
existing social and economic order.

However, under the theories of Structural Marxist, laws and the justice system
are not the exclusive domain for the rich to be used to suppress the
poor. Instead, these theorists argue that the criminal law and justice system are
designed to maintain capitalism and to sanction both the owner and worker
classes when their behavior threatens the stability of this economic structure.

Social conflict theories also include various

types of feminist theories (e.g., liberal vs.
radical feminism). These theories have emerged
in the last several decades to explain the links
between capitalism, patriarchy (a system of
lineage and inheritance that assumes male
dominance/supremacy), and female
criminality.

Copyright @2024 100

Criminology Chapter 16: Social Conflict Theories

For example, James Messerschmidt in his book Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Crime
(1986) argues that females in capitalist societies commit fewer crimes than
males because the dual forces of capitalism and patriarchy lead to the isolation
of women in roles of domestic labor and provides them far fewer opportunities
to engage in lucrative forms of white-collar crimes.

The nature of their exploitative and oppressive work under these dual systems
also limits women’s access to street-level criminal activities. These same
mechanisms of gender inequality, however, also increase the risks of criminal
victimization for many disadvantaged girls and women. From this perspective,
male violence against women is rooted in these social systems that promote
male supremacy and efforts on the part of men to control female sexuality and
bolster their masculine identity through acts of dominance and control.

Copyright @2024 101

Criminology Chapter 16: Social Conflict Theories

Application Questions:

1. What does Quinney mean by the "social reality of crime"?

2. How does the mass media influence our perceptions about crime
and serve as a tool for promoting the definitions of crime shared
by the rich and powerful?

3. How would social conflict theories explain why white-collar crimes

by the rich and powerful are often treated outside the criminal
justice system (e.g., through civil sanctions, injunctions,
compensation) and similar acts of grand larceny/theft by ordinary
citizens often result in the punishment of jail or prison sentences?

4. How do social conflict theories explain the higher rates of crime and
imprisonment in capitalistic countries like the U.S. compared to the
rest of the world?

Copyright @2024 102

Criminology Chapter 17: Crime Events/ Criminal Opportunity

Chapter 17:
Sociological Theories (Crime Events and Criminal
Opportunity)

Objectives:

• Know the three necessary elements of crime under criminal opportunity

theory.

• Describe examples of these major concepts in criminal opportunity theory:

(1) exposure to motivated offenders, (2) suitable targets, and (3)
guardianship.

• Identify the specific features that are associated with "facilitating places",
"facilitating hardware", and "facilitating others".

• Know the basic principles and assumptions of criminal behavior that

underlying Situational Crime Prevention (SCP).

Theoretical interests in the understanding of crime as an “act” or “event” has

been around since the mid 20th century. This “crime event” perspective has its
intellectual origins in the work of symbolic interactionists (like Erving Goffman
who explore how subjective meaning is attached to objects and events that we
perceive in our everyday lives) and social ecologists (like Amos Hawley who
examines the tempo, pace, and rhythm that are found in particular social
spaces/niches).

These basic ideas about the subjective

impressions and the properties of physical
spaces have formed the basis of several
theories of criminal acts and their context.

These theories emphasize how the

opportunity for criminal acts is generated by the particular characteristics of the
persons, places, and situations that underlie these contexts for crime--this is why
they are called “criminal opportunity theories”.

Copyright @2024 103

Criminology Chapter 17: Crime Events/ Criminal Opportunity

Theories of criminal opportunity involve an assortment of approaches that place

the causes of crime within the symbiotic relationships between conventional and
illegal activities of everyday life (Miethe and Deibert 2007: 27).

Daily routine activities and personal lifestyles affect criminal opportunities

because they affect the convergence in time and space of three necessary
elements of predatory offenses: (1) exposure to motivated offenders, (2)
suitable targets, and (3) the absence of guardianship. When combined with
several other characteristics (e.g., “facilitating places”, “facilitating hardware”),
these elements provide a comprehensive explanation the epidemiology of most
criminal acts and their situational context. A description of each of the elements
and their role in producing criminal opportunities is provided below.

One’s exposure to motivated offenders refers to both your physical proximity to

criminals and your daily routine activities that place you in close contact with
them. Examples of this exposure/proximity include living in a high-crime
neighborhood, having roommates/spouses/neighbors that are habitual
criminals, working in a dangerous job (police officers, prison guards, cab driver,
nighttime convenience store worker), and hanging out in particular public places
at night (e.g., bars, bus stops, parks). In short, stay away and keep your distance
from “bad people” to reduce your chances of victimization by a criminal act.

What constitutes a suitable target is a subjective

judgment based on an offender’s personal
preferences and the type of criminal
activity. Generally, the most suitable targets are
those that are perceived by offenders as attractive,
valuable, visible, accessible, portable (i.e., easily
movable), and having high liquidity. Muggers prefer
cash over equivalent amounts of travel checks or
jewelry because it has immediate liquidity/usability.

Most burglars like to steal small but expense goods (like jewelry rather than
pianos) because they are more easily portable/moveable. Similarly, many sex
offenders prey on their own kids because they are more visible and accessible to
them. For many pick-pockets and other property offenders, any visible signs of
potential resistance in getting the valued item (e.g., having a purse strap tightly
wrapped around your shoulder, having a chain on your watch/wallet) will be
sufficient to make you an unattractive target--they will simply look for someone
else whose valuables are more visible and accessible. Car thieves will steal a
running car with keys in the ignition over a locked, parked car any day because
its greater accessibility and portability.

Copyright @2024 104

Criminology Chapter 17: Crime Events/ Criminal Opportunity

Guardianship refers to the ability of persons or objects to prevent the

occurrence of crime. Social guardianship involves having other people
around you who may prevent criminal acts against you by their mere
presence or by providing assistance to you in warding off an attack. Any
“rational” mugger is going to select crime targets that are isolated or
alone, so if you are in a public place with many people there is some
element of “safety in numbers”. Similarly, having other people (spouses,
kids, roommates, etc.) live in your home also provides social guardianship
to your dwelling.

These other people may annoy you at

times, but their mere presence will also
dramatically reduce your risks of burglary
because burglars are most easily deterred
by any “signs of occupancy” in the home--
they want your stuff but they don’t want a
personal confrontation.

In contrast, physical guardianship includes various types of target-

hardening activities (e.g., door/window locks, home/car alarms, guns,
guard dogs, self-defense training), other physical impediments to
household theft (e.g., street lighting, guarded public entrances), and
participation in collective activities (e.g., Neighborhood Watch Programs).

Facilitating places are particular types of

physical settings and micro-environments
that facilitate the occurrence of criminal
acts. Some of these facilitating contexts for
violent acts include one’s home, bars, and
subway or bus stops. For example, while
many people feel safest in their home,
there are numerous physical and social
attributes associated with one’s home that
makes it a facilitating context for violence.

In particular, the home is bounded by both a physical structure (walls and

space) and social norms of privacy that minimize intervention by others
(Miethe and Deibert 2007:119). Bars are also facilitating contexts for
violence because of the combination of nighttime activity (which
provides the “cover of darkness” for predators outside these
establishments), the proximity to motivated offenders (because most bar
patrons are young adults who also are the most crime prone age group),
and the consumption of alcohol reduces one’s inhibitions and
judgment. Restricted lighting and the lack of social guardianship are

Copyright @2024 105

Criminology Chapter 17: Crime Events/ Criminal Opportunity

many reasons why public transportation stops are especially facilitating

environments for crime in nighttime hours.

Facilitating hardware involves visible, accessible, and available objects

that are used in the threat or
commission of many violent acts. These
objects include an assortment of routine
household items (like kitchen knives,
bottles, hammers, and bricks) and more
specialized hardware like
guns. Compared to other types of
weapons, guns are an especially
facilitative hardware because they do not require extensive training
before use, are widely available (estimates are that about ½ of all
American households have a gun), do not require physical strength or
even direct contact with the victim, and have higher risks of lethality than
most other weapons (see Miethe and Deibert 2007: 121).

While criminal opportunity theories have been useful in explaining the onset and
distribution of criminal acts, these theories have also served as the basis for
ongoing attempts to reduce crime through programs of environmental design
(i.e., designing communities and buildings that decrease criminal opportunities)
and what is called “situational crime prevention” (SCP). The basic assumption
underlying SCP is that most criminals are rational offenders who make choices
about whether or not to engage in crime (see Clarke 1997; Miethe and Sousa
2009).

As rational offenders, their criminal behavior can

be reduced by increasing their costs for crime
(e.g., increasing social and physical guardianship to
increase the difficulty in completing the crime and
increasing the chances of getting caught) and
reducing their benefits from crime (e.g., place
limits on the amount of money that can be
withdrawn daily from your bank account, have
ignition shut-off switches in your car).

By using these situational crime prevention strategies, there should be less

criminal opportunities for potential offenders and ultimately less crime.

Copyright @2024 106

Criminology Chapter 17: Crime Events/ Criminal Opportunity

Watch Video Crim23:

Technological Changes and Crime Opportunities

Application Questions:

1. Give specific examples of major changes over the last 20 years in the
routine activities and lifestyles of Americans that have increased
the criminal opportunities in this country.

2. Under criminal opportunity theory, what would be the

characteristics of a "suitable target" for computer hackers and
identity thieves?

3. Based on the principles of criminal opportunity theory, what specific

actions should you take to reduce your risks of victimization the next
time you are in a public place?

4. What are the legal, technical and/or social changes, if any, that
would be necessary to make the home a less facilitating context for
violence?

5. What are the basic flaws and/or limitations of situational crime

prevention (SCP) as a solution to crime in a society?

Copyright @2024 107

Criminology Chapter 18: Crime Typologies

Chapter 18:
Crime Typologies

Objectives:

• Know why typologies are used in criminology and the two major
properties that are found in the most useful crime typologies.

• Identify examples of each of the following types of crime typologies:

legal-based, offender-based, multi-trait typologies.

• Identify the 5 dimensions/traits that underlying Clinard and Yeager's

"Behavior Systems Approach".

• Know the major factors that underlying Miethe, McCorkle, and

Listwan's typology of crime syndromes.

A typology is a classification system/scheme that attempts to simplify

information by identifying homogenous (similar) groups of cases/attributes and
combining them to make a smaller number of categories. For example, the U.S.
census recognizes at least 50 distinct racial/ethnic groups, but most everyday
conversations and research about “race” is based on combining these
racial/ethnic groups into the simpler 3-category typology of “White”, “Black” and
“Other”. Similarly, the 50 U.S. states are often grouped into 7 different regions
or sometimes into only 2 regions (South and Non-South).

Whenever a typology is created, the goal is to come up with a simpler

classification that is based on the principles of homogeneity within categories
(i.e., all cases/observations within the same categories are similar) and
heterogeneity across categories (i.e., there are large differences between the
traits/attributes of the cases in the different categories). So, if all Southern
states are similar to each other based on the particular classification criteria and
these Southern states, as a group, are different from Northern states (who are
also similar to all other Northern states), then you have a good typology.

Copyright @2024 108

Criminology Chapter 18: Crime Typologies

Like classification schemes in other fields (e.g., how elements are grouped in the
periodic table in Chemistry), crime typologies are sometimes simple and
sometimes complex. They are also extremely useful in some cases and basically
worthless in others, depending upon how well they follow the principles of
within-category homogeneity and between-category heterogeneity. Some of the
crime typologies that are commonly used in criminological research are
summarized below.

1. Legal-Based Typologies

Typologies based on differences within and between legal categories are

some of the most common typologies in criminological research (see
Miethe et al 2006: 2). A widely used, but extremely crude, legal
classification distinguishes between misdemeanor and felony offenses.
The distinguishing feature in this felony/misdemeanor typology is the
seriousness of the criminal act (e.g., misdemeanors are punished by less
than 1 year and felonies get more than one year). However, a limitation
of this typology is that felonies as diverse as murder (punishable by up to
a life sentence or death) and auto theft (punished usually by probation or
less than one year of imprisonment) are considered the same “type” of
offenses (i.e., they are both felonies) even though they vary dramatically
in terms of why people commit these crimes, when/where they occur,
and how severely each of them are treated in the criminal justice system
(Miethe et al 2006:2). The limitations of this felony/misdemeanor
classification are also revealed by the huge jurisdictional differences in
the legal status of offenses like marijuana possession (it is a felony in
some states, a misdemeanor in others, and basically legal in other
jurisdictions). Most states use the legal category of “gross misdemeanor”
as a middle ground between misdemeanors and felonies (which helps
create a more useful distinction between offenses), but it doesn’t fix the
problem with jurisdictional variability in what “counts” as each of these
types of offenses (like the marijuana example).

Another type of legal typology categorizes offenses on the basis of the

characteristics of the victim. Under this typology, three legal types of
offense categories include:

• Crimes against the person, including murder, sexual assault,

robbery, and battery.
• Crimes against property, including burglary, larceny, forgery,
embezzlement, and auto theft.
• Crimes against public order, including disturbing the peace,
trespassing, drunkenness, drug use, and prostitution.

Copyright @2024 109

Criminology Chapter 18: Crime Typologies

For American criminologists, however, the most widely used legal

typology is the crime categories that underlie the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). The fundamental
distinction in this classification system is the difference between the
Index Crimes (also called Part I Offenses) and the Non-Index Crimes
(Part II Offenses). The most extensive data is collected on the index
crimes. According to the FBI's reporting documentation (UCR 2009), the
specific legal definition of each index crime is summarized below:

• Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter. Causing the death of

another person without legal justification or excuse.

• Forcible Rape. Sexual intercourse or attempted sexual

intercourse with a female against her will, by force or threat of
force.

• Robbery. Unlawful taking or attempted taking of property that is

in the immediate possession of another, by force or threat of
force. Locations of robbery include (a) highway (streets, alleys,
etc.), (b) commercial house, (c) gas or service station, (d)
convenience store, (e) residence, (f) bank, and (g) miscellaneous.

• Aggravated Assault. Unlawful and intentional causing of serious

bodily injury with or without a deadly weapon, or unlawful
intentional attempting or threatening of serious injury or death
with a deadly weapon.

• Burglary. Unlawful entry of any fixed structure, vehicle, or vessel

used for regular residence, industry, or business, with or without
force, with the intent to commit a felony or larceny. Distinctions
are made between the type of structure (residential versus
nonresidential) and time of day.

• Larceny/Theft. Unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away

by stealth of property, other than a motor vehicle, from the
possession of another. It includes (a) pocket picking, (b) purse
snatching, (c) shoplifting, (d) theft from motor vehicles, (e) theft
of motor vehicle parts and accessories, (f) theft of bicycles, (g)
theft from buildings, (h) theft from coin-operated devices or
machines, and (i) all other larceny.

• Motor-Vehicle Theft. Unlawful taking, or attempted taking, of a

self-propelled road vehicle owned by another, with the intent to
deprive the owner of it permanently or temporarily. It includes (a)
automobiles, (b) trucks and buses, and (c) other vehicles.

Copyright @2024 110

Criminology Chapter 18: Crime Typologies

• Arson. Willful or malicious burning or attempted burning of

property with or without intent to defraud. It includes the burning
of (a) one's own property, (b) the property of others, and (c)
public property.

The FBI also subcategorizes these index crimes into groups of violent offenses
(murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assaults) and property offenses (burglary,
larceny, motor-vehicle theft, and arson). Because particular offenses within
these two general categories are quite different (e.g., murder is a distinct violent
crime because it is the only one that results in death) or they overlap (e.g., if a
person is injured in an arson, is that now counted as a violent crime?), many
criminologists think the simple typology of “violent crime” vs. “property crime” is
not very useful.

2. Offender-Based Typologies

Criminologists have used various types of offender-based typologies.

These types of classification systems are epitomized in the earliest
criminological research by Cesare Lombroso's (1874) assertions about the
following three distinct types of criminals: (1) the born criminal, (2) the
insane criminals and (3) the criminaloids. However, among the general
category of “criminaloids”, Lombroso also identified other types of
offenders including “criminals by passion” (e.g., murders who kill those
who dishonored their families or have been unfaithful to them) and
“occasional criminals” who are primarily opportunists with little previous
involvement in crime or commitment to it as a lifestyle (Miethe et al.
2006:3).

Another type of offender-based typologies involves the body-type

classification of William Sheldon (endomorphic, mesomorphic, and
ectomorphic--watch out for the “mesomorphs” [aggressive, muscular
types]). Among clinical psychologists and psychiatrists, numerous
typologies are used to classify offenders on the basis of single or multiple
groups of traits. For example, the diagnostic labels of “impulsive,” “anti-
social,” “neurotic” and “psychotic” are often used to make distinguish
between types of offenders (Miethe et al. 2006:4). Similarly, an offender-
based typology is also the basis for Terrie Moffitt’s (1993) work on the
different criminal careers of juveniles who are life course persisters (i.e.,
juvenile delinquents who become chronic adult offenders) and adult
desisters (i.e., delinquents who “grow out” of crime and desist in early
adulthood.

Copyright @2024 111

Criminology Chapter 18: Crime Typologies

3. Multi-Trait Typologies

The best example of a multi-trait crime typology is Marshall Clinard and

Richard Quinney’s (1973) Behavioral Systems Approach. This typology
assumes that distinct categories (behavioral systems) of crime can be
developed by examining the nature and prevalence of the following 5
separate dimensions/traits: (a) the legal aspects of selected offenses
(including definitions of criminal conduct), (b) the criminal career of the
offender (involving the progression in crime and one's criminal self-
concept), (c) group support for criminal behavior, (d) correspondence
between criminal and legitimate behavior, and (e) societal reaction and
legal processing. When all 5 of these dimensions are considered together,
Clinard and Quinney derive nine distinct types of behavioral systems.

A description of the 5 behavioral systems examined in this lecture series, and a

listing of the particular offenses found within the remaining 4 behavioral
systems, are summarized below:

• Violent Personal Criminal Behavior. Offenses in this category

include acts of personal violence such as homicide, assault, and
rape. Most of these offenders do not have a well-developed
criminal self-concept (they don’t really perceive themselves as
being “criminal”) and they do not typically have an extensive
criminal record. Studies of recidivism (repeat offending) indicate
that murderers and rapists are the least likely types of criminals to
be repeat offenders. There is usually little or no group support for
these crimes because they are an expression of personal
motives. However, theories like Wolfgang and Ferracuti’s
“subculture of violence” and Anderson’s “code of the street”
suggest that there is some subcultural support for pro-violent
norms and behavior within some social groups and geographical
areas. These crimes have little or no correspondence between
criminal and conventional behavior because these acts violate the
high value we place on human life and personal safety. As a
group, these crimes elicit the most severe societal reaction of all
crimes, with punishments including the death penalty (for
murder) and long prison sentences (for rape and aggravated
assaults).

• Conventional Criminal Behavior. Offenses in this category include

acts of theft/larceny from the person (e.g., muggings, pick-
pocketing), a residential or non-residential structure (e.g.,
burglaries), or from a business/commercial establishment (e.g.,

Copyright @2024 112

Criminology Chapter 18: Crime Typologies

robberies of convenience stores, banks). Most offenders who

commit these types of offenses have long histories of criminal
activity that begin early in adolescence. This early onset of
delinquency is often linked to hanging out with delinquent peers
and gang activity. These offenders have a medium to high level of
a criminal self-concept because of their frequent involvement in
these crimes. The level of group support for conventional crimes
is also in the medium to high range because this activity is often
encouraged and socially facilitated by their
peers/companions/associates (e.g., a person may gain some
status in their group by showing they are a “tough guy” or “risk
taker” for committing these offenses). There is a moderate level
of correspondence between this illegal behavior and conventional
behavior in that it is (1) consistent with the goals of economic
success but (2) is inconsistent with the acceptable, legitimate
means of achieving these goals. They are the classic “innovators”
in Merton’s theory of anomie. In terms of the nature of societal
reaction, police agencies devote considerable attention to these
conventional crimes and those who engage in these behaviors
often have high rates of arrest and convictions. Long prison
sentences are given to those conventional criminals who are
chronic or habitual offenders (e.g., these are often the type of
offenders that fall under “3 strikes and you’re out” laws). Those
who are first time offenders are often given a short prison
sentence, jail time, or probation, depending upon the seriousness
of the particular offense.

• Occupational Criminal Behavior. These crimes are offenses

committed by people for personal gains within the context of
their work and/or occupation. They include such offenses as
embezzlement, expense account misuse, bribery of public
officials, and land/stock/security fraud. Most of these offenders
do not have criminal records and do not have a criminal self-
concept--they typically don’t view themselves as criminals
because they often use Matza and Syke’s techniques of
neutralization to justify and neutralize their behavior (e.g., by
denial of injury, denial of the victim, denial of responsibility,
etc.). The idea of the “buyer beware” philosophy (i.e., if you are
stupid enough to buy ocean-front property in the state of
Nebraska, you deserve to be victimized!!) also helps these
offenders who are engaging in consumer fraud engage in self-
deception by not seeing themselves as “criminals”. There is high
correspondence between the conventional and criminal behavior
for these offenders because their work environment provides the

Copyright @2024 113

Criminology Chapter 18: Crime Typologies

physical opportunities to commit these crimes (e.g., company

accountants and financial officers are often the most strategically
placed people for being embezzlers because they have legitimate
access to the company’s money and financial records to steal
them.). There is little or no group support for these offenders
because they often work alone and victimize their own
company. When these offenders are caught, they are usually
handled informally within the company/business (e.g., fired,
suspended). Criminal prosecution is relatively rare because
businesses typically want to keep things “in house”---the public
may lose trust/faith in the company and pull out their
investments in it if they know that the company’s
security/monitoring is so poor that it is being ripped off from the
inside. If occupational offenders are criminally prosecuted, their
criminal sentences are often lenient (e.g., probation, 1-2 years in
minimum security institutions).

Watch Video Crim24:

Criminal Identities of White Collar

Offenders

• Corporate Criminal Behavior. These crimes are offenses

committed by people on behalf of their organization/businesses
for purposes of supporting these organizations. They are different
from occupational crimes because their motive is not personal
gain. While individuals who commit acts of corporate criminal
behavior may benefit indirectly from these activities (e.g., they
may be promoted or given large yearly bonuses for their “good
work”), it is the company or business that is the primary
benefactor of these crimes. Included in this category are offenses
like the restraint of trade, anti-trust violations, false advertising,
manufacturing unsafe food and drugs, and environmental
pollution. Individuals and companies that engage in these illegal
practices do not perceive themselves as being criminal. Their
illegal activity is closely tied to their legitimate business activities
and it is often viewed as reflecting “sharp” business practices
rather than criminal behavior. The profit mentality in corporations
and maintaining profit margins are the driving forces that leads to
a culture of strong organizational support for these types of
offenses. Criminal prosecutions are rare for these offenses. In

Copyright @2024 114

Criminology Chapter 18: Crime Typologies

those exceptional cases in which corporate crime is discovered by

regulatory agencies, they are typically resolved through
administrative sanctions (e.g., cease and desist orders, temporary
revocation/suspension of licenses, monetary
fines/compensation).

• Organized Criminal Behavior. Persons who engage in organized

criminal behavior are conducting these crimes within the context
of organized crime syndicates. Offenses within this category
include drug trafficking, loan sharking, off-track betting, money
laundering, and racketeering (i.e., an organized conspiracy to
commit extortion). For persons who engage in these activities,
crime is often a livelihood and there is a progression into crime
though time. Within the traditional Italian and Sicilian crime
families, there was strong group support for these activities
because crime was tied to family traditions. For current drug
cartels and other organized crime syndicates, there are also high
levels of group support within these organizations. There is a
moderate level of correspondence between illegal and legitimate
business practices because organized criminal behavior supplies
the public with goods and services that legitimate businesses are
unwilling or legally unable to provide. Aside from occasional
crackdowns on organized crime syndicates, the societal reaction
to organized crime is somewhat moderate. This “moderate”
reaction to organized crime has been attributed to the historical
legacy of mobsters’ immunity against prosecution and the fact
that many legitimate businesses have profited directly from
money laundering and other organized crime activities.

• Occasional Property Criminal Behavior (including forgery,

shoplifting, vandalism, and automobile theft).

• Public-Order Criminal Behavior (including prostitution,

homosexuality, drunkenness, and drug use).

• Political Criminal Behavior (including conspiracy and political

demonstrations).

• Professional Criminal Behavior (including confidence games,

identity theft schemes, forgery, and counterfeiting).

The major strength of Clinard and Quinney’s typology is its use of multiple traits
or dimensions for identifying crime types and its intuitive appeal to most
criminologists (see Miethe et al 2006:6). However, it is also limited because of
some major differences within some of these crime categories. For example,

Copyright @2024 115

Criminology Chapter 18: Crime Typologies

violent personal offenders are assumed to have little development of a criminal

career (because their acts are largely spontaneous and impulsive), but the
professional “hit man” and the chronic neighborhood thug often have a firmly
entrenched criminal self-concept and career pattern. Major exceptions can be
found within each behavior system (Miethe et al 2006:6).

In their book “Crime Profiles”, Miethe, McCorkle, and Listwan (2006)

develop an alternative multi-trait typology that is based on the idea of
crime syndromes. These syndromes are based on the composite profile
of the offender, offense, and situational elements that underlie different
types of crimes. According to these authors, there are distinct subsets of
syndromes within general crime categories--for example, in the category
of “murder and assaults”, some of these offenses are “interpersonal
disputes” that have unique signatures (i.e., different motives,
offender/victim/situational elements) than other subtypes (e.g.,
politically motivated violent acts). The types of distinct syndromes that
underlie major categories of crime include the following:

Murder and Assaults:

o Interpersonal Disputes (e.g., domestic violence)

o Instrumental Felony Offenses (e.g., robbery homicides)
o Youth Group Offending (e.g., juvenile gang violence)
o Chronic Violent Offenders (e.g., serial killers).
o Politically Motivated Violent Crime (e.g., terrorists)

Sexual Assaults:

o Serial Sex Offenders

o Child Molesters
o Adolescent Sex Offenders
o Date Rape and Intra-Family Sexual Assaults (e.g. incest,
marital rape)

Robbery (Personal and Institutional Forms):

o Offender-Based Classifications (e.g., chronic, professional,

occasional)
o Bank Robbers
o Convenience Store Robbers
o Street Muggers
o Home Invasion Robbers

Copyright @2024 116

Criminology Chapter 18: Crime Typologies

Burglary (Residential and Non-Residential Forms):

o Residential Burglars (daytime, nighttime; forcible entry,

attempts)
o Commercial Burglars (daytime, nighttime; forcible entry,
attempts)

Motor Vehicle Theft:

o Joyriders
o Financially Motivated Thieves

Occupational Crimes:

o Occupational Offenders
o Economic vs. Physical Harm
o Type of Victims (e.g., government, other organizations,
individuals)

Organizational Crimes:

o Economic vs. Physical Harm

o Type of Victims (e.g., government, other organizations,
individuals)

Public Order Crimes:

o Prostitution
o Pornography
o Substance Abuse
o Gambling

For each of these general offense categories and subtypes within them,
the typical profiles of these crimes are derived from the characteristics of
the offender (e.g., sex, age, race, social class, criminal history, evidence of
specialization, planned/spontaneous actions), the offense (e.g., time of
day, season, physical location), and the situational context (e.g., motive,
victim-offender relationship, number of offenders, alcohol-drug
presence, victim facilitation). While this multi-trait typology is a bit more
complicated than other classifications of crime, it seems to better
represent the nature of the basic differences and similarities within and
between general categories of criminal acts. In other words, it best fits
the basic principle of good typologies--i.e. it maximizes both the
homogeneity within categories and heterogeneity across categories.

Copyright @2024 117

Criminology Chapter 18: Crime Typologies

Application Questions:

1. Why are crime typologies necessary for criminologists and what is

the ultimate goal of a good crime typology?

2. All states use a legal typology that distinguishes between

misdemeanors and felony offenses. From the perspective of "best
practices" for developing good typologies, what is wrong with this
particular legal typology?

3. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports include rape and attempted rape
of a female victim in the category of Part I Offenses, but they
include other sex offenses (e.g., lewd and lascivious conduct; anal
penetration, sex trafficking) in a separate category of Part II
Offenses. How does this FBI classification of rapes and other sexual
assaults violate the principle that good typologies have
"homogeneity within categories and heterogeneity across
categories"?

4. What are the common or shared elements of "public order

offenses" (e.g., prostitution, pornography, substance abuse,
gambling) that would justify including these crimes within the
same category of a typology?

Copyright @2024 118

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

Chapter 19:
Violent Crime in U.S. History (Homicide and Aggravated
Assault)

Objectives:

• Know the extent to which violence has been an integral part of American life
throughout history.

• Know the differences between and within types of non-criminal and criminal
homicides.

• Describe trends in the murder and aggravated assault rates over the last 50
years and identify the factors that explain changes in murder rates over this
time period.

• Know the typical offender, victim, and situational characteristics in homicides

and aggravated assaults in the U.S.

• Identify the major approaches that are being used to prevent and control acts
of interpersonal violence.

A Short History of U.S. Violence

American history is a history of acts of collective, group, and individual

violence. Violence was an integral part of the early colonial settlements
and the conflict with the Native Americans. The Revolutionary War of
Independence and the Civil War had dual consequences of strengthening
and galvanizing the country with mass death and destruction. After the
Civil War, acts of individual and collective violence continued through the
expansion of the Western frontier, feuds with other governments, and
vigilante activities by groups like the KKK.

Copyright @2024 119

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

Violent labor strikes in the early 20th century and multiple wars (World
War I and II) in subsequent years continued this legacy. Starting in the
1960s, the combination of several activities/events (e.g., the Vietnam
War, the Civil Rights movement; the rise in gang activities in central
cities) began a dramatic escalation in the nature and prevalence of
violence. More recently, the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the U.S.
response to these actions (e.g., the "wars on terror" in Iraq and
Afghanistan) has led to emergent forms of individual and collective acts
of violence.

The prevalence and preoccupation with violence in America is also

represented by various statistical profiles of violence-related
activities. For example, here’s some statistical summaries of the extent
and nature of interpersonal violence in the U.S.:

• Over 800,000 Americans have died from homicide since the early
1960s.

• About 16,000 murders, 140,000 forcible rapes, 270,000 robberies,

and over 820,000 aggravated assaults were known the police in
2019. This translates into a reported murder every 31 minutes, a
rape every 4 minutes, a robbery every 1.7 minutes, and an
aggravated assault every 39 seconds. Combined, a violent crime is
known to the police about every 25 seconds (UCR 2019).

• Over half (50%) of all Americans will be a victim of a violent crime

(murder, rape, robbery or serious assault) in their lifetime. These
risks are far higher for younger people, males, and urban
residents. For example, an estimated 83% of 12 year olds will be
victimized by a violent crime in their remaining lifetime, but these
risks are only 22% for people who are currently 50 years old
(Koppel [BJS] 1987).

• By the time they reach the age of 18, the typical American child
will have witnessed over 200,000 acts of violence on television,
including 16,000 murders (Miethe and Deibert 2007:22).

• About one-fourth of high school students report being in a

physical fight in the last year. About 5% of students say that they
have carried a gun in the last 30 days (YRBS 2017).

• Survey results consistently estimate that guns are present in

about one half of American households.

Copyright @2024 120

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

• Corporal punishment (spanking) remains a popular method of

child discipline.

• Fear of criminal victimization from a violent crime is a primary

concern for many groups of Americans, especially women and
senior citizens. This fear leads to the increased avoidance of
activities outside of one’s home, increased distrust of other
people, and a general decline in the quality of life.

The risks of violent victimization are not uniform across social groups. In
fact, the results of national victimization surveys (NCVS) indicate that the
following groups have higher risk of violent victimization than their
counterparts: young people (18-30 year olds), city residents,
ethnic/racial minorities, and persons with lower income. The most likely
offender and victim of personal violence is a young male (under 25 years
old). Older females (over 25 years old) have the lowest risks of both
offending and victimization.

Estimates of the risks of homicide victimization show dramatic

differences by both gender and race. Across all individuals, the lifetime
risks of being murdered are about 1 out of every 154 Americans. These
risks are 1/503 for white females, about 1/125 for both black females and
white males, and a startling 1/24 for black men (see Dobrin, Wiersma,
Loftin, and McDowall 1996). Homicide is the leading cause of death for
Black males between the ages of 15-24.

In short, violence is a major part of American history. Risks of violent

victimization, however, are disproportionately higher among some social
groups than others (e.g., the young, males, ethnic/racial minorities, the
poor, and urban residents).

Homicide and Aggravated Assaults (Definitions and

Characteristics)

Homicides (the killing of one by another) and aggravated assaults

(batteries with serious injuries or threat of serious injuries) are two types
of violent crime that share many characteristics--they often involve
similar types of people as victims and offenders, occur at similar times
and locations, and they are often motivated by the same factors. The
basic difference between homicides and aggravated assaults is whether
the criminal act results in death or injury. However, rather than reflecting
distinct motives and etiology, the basic difference in the lethality of
homicides and other physical assaults may simply reflect differences in

Copyright @2024 121

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

the type of weapon used, the offender’s aim and where the victim is hit,
and/or the availability of immediate medical care. For these reasons,
homicides and aggravated assaults are often considered as similar
offenses in most crime typologies.

1. Definitions

From a legal perspective, there are two general categories of

homicide: non-criminal and criminal homicides. Non-criminal homicides
include deaths that involve a legal excuse or legal justification. Offenders
of these homicides are not considered criminally responsible for these
deaths and these crimes are not typically counted in UCR estimates of the
number of homicides in the nation for any given year. Criminal
homicides, in contrast, involve murders and manslaughters in which the
offender is considered legally culpable (blameworthy) for the
crime. Specific examples of each type of homicide are summarized below:

Non-Criminal Homicides: Two distinct types of non-criminal homicides

are identified within the criminal law:

• Excusable Homicides: Legal excuses involve situations in which

“wrongful conduct is wrong, but because the offender is suffering
from some type of impairment (e.g., insanity, duress, immaturity,
involuntary intoxication) or other special circumstances (e.g.,
gross victim negligence), he/she should not be held criminally
responsible.” States use different standards for determining
insanity (e.g., the “right/wrong” test [McNaughten Rule], the
irresistible impulsive test, the substantial capacity test, the
product rule, etc).

Cases of excusable homicide involve unintentional killings in

which no criminal blame is attached to the killer. A successful
verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity” (called NGI) does not
carry a criminal conviction, but many homicide offenders who are
found NGI serve more time in custody for a civil commitment in a
mental institution than they would under a criminal conviction for
a lesser form of criminal homicide (e.g., manslaughter). So, being
found NGI is not necessarily "beating the rap". Furthermore, some
states use the legal disposition of “guilty but mentally ill”--this
permits a civil commitment until the person is mentally fit and
then the person spends the rest of their sentence in prison.

Copyright @2024 122

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

• Justifiable Homicides: A legal justification involves situations in

which “wrongful conduct is right under the circumstances”. A
justifiable homicide is an intentional killing sanctioned by
law. Examples of justifiable homicides include (1) the legal
execution of a death sentence by authorized state officials, (2) the
killing of a fleeing felon by a law enforcement officer, and (3)
homicides that occur in self-defense. Justifiable homicides based
on self-defense require that the defender is under imminent or
immediate threat of loss of life and cannot retreat from the
situation.

Watch Video Crim25:

Time Lag in Acts of Self-Defense

The “Castle Doctrine” gives homeowners the right to “Stand Your

Ground” (i.e., not retreat) in their homes and apply deadly force
against an intruder who has intent to inflict seriously bodily harm
to them. This right to defend one’s “castle” with lethal force is
permitted as a justifiable homicide in about 23 of the 50 states. As
of December 2020, 26 states have specific provisions for “Stand
Your Ground” laws that extend these castle protections to other
physical places outside of the home.

Most states use the Coroner’s inquest as the basis for determining
lawful police shootings of suspects. Incidents of domestic violence
in which the wife kills the husband under conditions of
imminent/immediate threat or after years of physical abuse are
common situations of justifiable homicides involving self-defense.

Criminal Homicides: Criminal homicides involve cases of murder and

manslaughter in which the offender is considered legally responsible.
Different types of murder and manslaughter include the following:

• First Degree Murder: These murders are willful, deliberate,

premeditated killings with malice aforethought (i.e., conscious
intent to kill). The idea that someone is willing to act in a callous
and wanton disregard for the life of others is also a reason why
“felony murder” (e.g., homicides that occur during another
felony—like a robbery homicide) is also considered cases of 1st

Copyright @2024 123

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

degree murder. Under the felony murder doctrine, all participants

in the original felony can be charged with murder if someone dies
in the incident even if this particular participant did not personally
harm anyone. Even if a fellow robber is killed in a hold-up by the
police or a storeowner, the other surviving robbers can be
charged for their partner’s murder. In most states, the killing of
certain types of people (especially police officers, a child, a prison
guard, or fellow prisoner) is also classified as a first-degree
murder. First-degree murders are punishable in the U.S. by the
death penalty or life imprisonment.

• Second Degree Murder: These murders are non-premeditated

killings that result from an assault in which death of the victim
was a distinct possibility. Definitions of 2nd degree murder and
punishment for them vary widely by state. The punishment for
these offenses typically involves prison sentences between 10 and
20 years. This type of murder is often the convicted offense after
a plea bargaining agreement is reached between the prosecution
and defense attorneys--a murder defendant is often willing to
accept a plea for 2nd degree murder especially when the
prosecutor is threatening them with a possible conviction for
capital murder (i.e., 1st degree murder with special circumstances
that would provide the opportunity for a death penalty for this
crime).

• Voluntary Manslaughter: These offenses are intentional killings

that are accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate
the seriousness, but do not excuse the killings. The most common
situations of voluntary manslaughter are killings of another under
rage or the “heat of passion”, and under conditions of victim
provocation. Depending upon its nature and gravity, victim
provocation may be adequate to reduce a murder charge to
manslaughter or even, in the case of self defense, reduce the
murder charge to a non-criminal, justifiable homicide. In most
states, the following conditions must be present for victim
provocation to warrant a reduced charge: (1) the provocation
must cause rage or fear in a reasonable person and (2) there
shouldn’t be any “cooling time” for the offender’s passions to
subside (i.e., the defendant’s actions must be guided by
emotionalism [not rationalism] because their passions are so
immediately inflamed by the provocation).

Specific state courts have determined that such acts as “hitting

someone with a big stick” or “with a staggering blow” are

Copyright @2024 124

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

sufficient types of victim provocation, but verbal insults or minor

physical gestures [e.g., giving someone the middle finger] are not
adequate to inflame the passions of a reasonable person. The
typical punishment for a conviction for voluntary manslaughter is
anywhere between 1 and 10 years of prison. Studies of homicide
have found repeatedly that voluntary manslaughters are the most
common types of homicides in the United States.

• Involuntary Manslaughter: These offenses are unlawful killings of

another person without intent and/or without reasonable care
(i.e., negligence). These killings may also occur during the
commission of another unlawful act that is not a felony. Under
involuntary manslaughters, there is no intent to cause bodily
harm or injury--the death is an unintended and unfortunate
outcome of the offender’s negligence or a collateral consequence
of a misdemeanor. Common situations for involuntary
manslaughter are deaths resulting from the negligent operation of
a motor vehicle (DUI, running stop lights, excessive speeding),
killings when a loaded gun is discharged accidently, and hunting
accidents. Prison sentences of less than 5 years, jail sentences,
fines, and probation are some of the criminal punishments
imposed for convictions for involuntary manslaughter.

Types of non-lethal assaults are often legally classified in terms of

whether they are simple or aggravated attacks. Aggravated assaults
involve deliberate and serious physical injuries to another or cases in
which a weapon is used regardless of injury. Simple assaults, in contrast,
typically involve minimal or minor physical injury and no external
weapon. As a potential source of confusion, the legal definition of an
assault is “the threat of harm and the ability to carry it out” and battery
is “the act of harmful or offensive touching of another”. So, what we
typically view as an assault (e.g., getting punched in the face by another)
is really a battery. To avoid confusion, however, most criminologist just
use the generic term “assault” to refer to both physical threats (assaults)
and the physical act of harmful/offensive touching (battery).

2. Crime Rates for Homicide and Aggravated Assault Over Time

Rates of homicide and aggravated assault in the U.S. have changed

dramatically over time. Starting in the early 1930s (when the FBI first
began collecting uniform data on crime), homicide rates decreased prior
to and during World War II, increased in this immediate post-war period,
rose sharply from the 1960s to mid 1970s, declined briefly in the early

Copyright @2024 125

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

1980s, generally increased until 1993, then decreased until 2000,

remained relatively low and stable between 2000 and 2005, and has
dropped somewhat over the last fifteen years. Aggravated assault rates
had a more uniform rise from the early 1960s to 1992, before trending
downward from the mid 1990s to 2019 (see Graph below). There were
about 16,400 homicides and 820,000 aggravated assaults known to the
police in 2019.

U.S. Homicide Rate per 100k (UCR 1960-2019)

0
1960 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000 2008 2016

500
U.S. Aggravated Assault Rate (UCR 1960-2019)

400

300

200

100

0
1960 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000 2008 2016

Copyright @2024 126

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

Several explanations have been offered for these changes in homicide

and assault rates over time.

These include the following:

• According to the legitimation of violence hypothesis developed

by Dane Archer and Rosemary Gartner (1984), war legitimizes
violence and these pro-violence values during wartime are carried
over to post-war periods. This theory is consistent with the
observed increases in the U.S. homicide rates after World War II,
the Korean War, and during and after the Vietnam War.

It is also consistent with the rates of homicide in other countries

over time. These authors also contend that post-war increases in
homicide and other violence occur regardless of the duration of
the war and for both the winning and losing countries.

• The theory of relative deprivation links both changes in homicide

and suicide rates to changes in business cycles. This theory
suggests that higher homicide rates occur in periods of growing
economic prosperity because conditions are improving for some
groups but not for others (see Miethe et al 2006:22). These
groups that are “left behind” (i.e., the young, poor, and others
who are socially disadvantaged) become frustrated and angry
because conditions are improving for everyone else except
them. This state of relative deprivation, in turn, leads these
groups to engage in various criminal acts of frustration and
displaced aggression (like murders, assaults, and rapes) or profit-
driven violent and property crimes (like robbery and burglary).

The dramatic rise in crime rates through the 1960s (a period in

which economic conditions were improving for most people but
not all of them) is consistent with expectations based on the
theory of relative deprivation. In times of total economic despair,
crime rates are generally low because everyone is suffering.

Given the state of the U.S. economy in 2010 and 2011 (and its
especially detrimental impact on lower and middle class families),
the theory of relative deprivation would predict that both violent
and property crime rates would be increasing over this time
period. However, contrary this theoretical prediction, overall
murder and aggravated assault rates have continued to decline
over the last decade even in the more recent years of greater
relative deprivation.

Copyright @2024 127

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

• The relative size of the 18-24 years old age cohort is another
explanation for changes in U.S. homicide rates over time. This age
group has the highest rate of offending and its relative size
compared to other age groups contributed to a higher volume of
homicide and other crimes. For example, the rise in homicide
rates in the 1960s has been attributed to the “baby boom” after
World War II--the baby boom is the idea that many parents had
kids in the years immediately after this war and their children
became 18-24 year olds in the 1960s.

Watch Video Crim26:

Medical Advances and Homicide Rates

• Changes in the nature of Americans’ routine activities and

lifestyles since World War II have also been identified as
criminogenic forces that explain changes in homicide rates and
other crimes over time. From this perspective, changes in people’s
routine activities/lifestyles have made them more
visible/accessible, more attractive, and less protected from
predatory criminals--these particular changes over the last 50
years include spending more time in risky public activities away
from the protection of one’s home, a rise in the proportion of
people living alone (i.e., single-person households) that offers less
social guardianship or protection for them, and increases in the
production of portable and expensive consumer goods (e.g., like
expensive watches, jewelry, ATM/bank cards, electronic
equipment) that makes people and their property more attractive
targets for acts of predatory violence.

• Increased gang activity and drug trafficking in central cities (e.g.,

New York, Los Angeles, Chicago) have been considered major
contributory factors in the rise in U.S. homicides in the 1960s and
1970s (Miethe et al 2006:22). In addition, the rise in homicides in
these major cities and others (Washington, D.C., Baltimore,
Philadelphia, Detroit, Miami, Atlanta) between the mid 1980s and
early 1990s has also been strongly linked to illicit drug activities
surrounding the crack cocaine “epidemic” in this time
period. Patterns of violence in large cities strongly influence the

Copyright @2024 128

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

national trends because homicides occur disproportionately in

large urban areas.

As discussed earlier in the context of the limitations of UCR data, it is

important to emphasize that police data on homicide and aggravated
assault underestimate the actual prevalence of these forms of violence in
the U.S. because (1) many of these crimes are not reported or known to
the police (i.e., the problem with the “Dark Figures”) and (2) some police
departments have recorded aggravated assaults as “simple assaults” or
“domestic violence”, crimes that are not included in the national
summaries of Part I offenses. In the case of homicide, the undercounting
of these crimes may be due to the fact that (1) some killings may be
misclassified as accidents or deaths by “natural causes” and (2) many
cases of “missing persons” are probably homicides that lack any physical
evidence to support this lethal classification by the police. It also worth
noting that U.S. homicide rates over the last four decades may have been
far higher if not for advances in medical technology and rapid medical
response units that have decreased the lethality of injuries from serious
physical assaults.

3. Social Correlates of Homicide and Aggravated Assault Rates

Murder and aggravated assault rates exhibit substantial variability by

geographical location and the degree of urbanization. According to UCR
data for 2019, the national murder rate was 5.0 per 100,000 and the
aggravated assault rate was about 250.2 per 100,000.

The murder and aggravated assault rates in Southern states are highest
among all regions and considerably higher than these national rates--the
South’s murder and assault rates are 6.4 and 277 per 100,000 population,
respectively. In contrast, the Northeastern region (covering New England
and the Middle Atlantic states [like NY, NJ, PA]) has the lowest rates of all
regions (3.3 and 187 per 100,000, respectively). These crimes rates for
Midwestern and Western states are near the national averages.

Copyright @2024 129

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

Homicide Rates per 100k by Region

(UCR 2019)

6.4
5 5
3.3 4.1

Total U.S. Northeast Midwest South West

Aggravated Assault Rates by Region

(UCR 2019)

250.2 277 262

239
186.7

Total U.S. Northeast Midwest South West

Both homicide and assault rates are higher in large metropolitan areas
than in suburban and rural areas. For example, cities with over 250,000
residents had a homicide rate in 2019 that was over 3 times higher than
the homicide rate for cities and towns with less than 25,000 residents
(9.6 vs. 3.0 per 100,000, respectively). These violent crime rates are also
higher in areas with greater population density. Some U.S. cities that are
well known for their long histories of high homicide rates include St.
Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, Atlanta, and Washington, D.C.

Copyright @2024 130

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

What is it about urban areas that contribute to their higher rates of

homicide and aggravated assaults? Most criminologists consider each of
the following social characteristics of particular urban areas to be strong
correlates of their violent crime rates: high unemployment, rapid
population turnover, overcrowding and housing decay, high ethnic
diversity, substandard schools, high rates of single parent households,
and high income inequality (Miethe et al. 2006:24). According to social
disorganization theory (Shaw and McKay 1948), these social factors are
related to higher crime rates because they are indicative of low economic
opportunity, the diversity of values and language, and the low
supervision of youth.

Watch Video Crim27:

International Homicide Rates

4. Offender Profile

The available data on persons arrested for homicide and aggravated

assault suggests that these offenders do not represent a random cross-
section of the U.S. population. Instead, compared to their distribution in
the general population, persons arrested for these crimes are
disproportionately male, young (under 25), African American, and urban
residents (Miethe et al 2006:25). Patterns of stability and change over
time in these social attributes of persons arrested for homicide and
aggravated assault are summarized below.

• Males represent about 88% of the homicide arrestees and 77% of

those arrested for aggravated assault (UCR 2019). These gender
differences have not changed appreciably over the last 50
years. For example, in 1963, these proportions were 82% and
86%, respectively. While some types of homicides by women may
be seriously undercounted in police data (e.g., infanticide, self-
defense killings of justifiable homicide, mercy killings [assisted
suicides]), the greater propensity for violence by males is also
supported in self-report and victimization studies. Higher rates of
interpersonal violence by males have been attributed to gender

Copyright @2024 131

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

violence among males has been attributed to differences in the

externalization/internalization of aggression (which explains the
higher suicide rates among females), biological factors (e.g.,
testosterone), and the use of aggression as a means of enhancing
one’s status and perceived masculinity.

• Persons under 25 years old account for about one half (40%) of
the homicide arrestees in 2019, about 32% of these arrestees
were between 18 and 24 years old, and 8% were under 18. The
comparable age figures for arrestees for aggravated assault were
26%, 19%, and 7%, respectively. Over the last 50 years, the
proportion of homicides involving teenagers and young adults has
increased over time. For example, only about one-fourth (26%) of
homicide arrestees were between 18 and 24 years old in 1960,
but this proportion has climbed to about 32% of arrestees in
2019. The percent of homicide arrestees under 18 years old
during this same time period exhibited little change (6% to 8%).

Although they represent only a small minority of homicide

offenders, homicide by youths has been a major public concern,
especially when these acts of youth violence occur in the context
of schools and involve teenage victims. The high risks of homicide
and assaults among young adults have been attributed to such
factors as low self-control, high impulsivity, and the weakened
bonds and attachments to social institutions (e.g., family, schools,
religion) that occur in these tumultuous years of late adolescence
and young adulthood.

Watch
Video Crim28:

Homicide as Self-Help

• African Americans account for half (51%) of all homicide

arrestees and about one-third (33%) of persons arrested for
aggravated assault (UCR 2015). This racial profile has not changed
dramatically over the last 50 years. The disproportionate
representation of African Americans among arrestees for these
violent crimes has been attributed to a variety of factors,
including (1) greater police patrolling in minority communities and

Copyright @2024 132

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

selective arrests of Blacks within these areas, (2) greater

economic disadvantage in minority communities that generates
feelings of alienation, despair and frustration, (3) racial
differences in the internalization and externalization of
aggression, and (4) the historical legacy of slavery and racism that
restricts the opportunity for African Americans to achieve justice
and resolve conflicts through legitimate means so they use
violence as “street justice” and as an alternative mechanism of
social control and dispute resolution.

Arrest rates among Hispanics for homicide (21%) and aggravated

assault (26%) are similar to their representation within the U.S.
population. Only a small proportion of arrestees for homicide
(3%) and aggravated assault (5%) involve persons who are either
American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander.

Information on the social class of violent offenders is not available in

national UCR arrest reports. However, the higher distribution of homicide
arrestees among lower class individuals can be inferred from the
following general observations:

• First, geographical data on “calls for service” and arrests from

local police departments reveal “hot spots” for violent crime and
these areas are often located in lower class neighborhoods.

• Second, the vast majority of criminal defendants for felony

charges are indigent (i.e., persons with insufficient economic
resources to hire their own attorney).

• Third, presentence investigation reports (PSI) conducted to

determine the appropriate punishment for convicted offenders
often reveal the economic marginality of many of these offenders.

The actual mechanism that increases the propensity of lower class

individuals to commit violent crimes may involve the frustration and
despair associated with economic marginality and the adverse effects of
lower income on pre-natal and infant health problems, higher impulsivity
and developmental disabilities associated with poor nutrition and health
care, and poor school performance and limited economic opportunities
that are linked to these other factors.

Copyright @2024 133

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

The “nature-nurture” debate and the criminal histories of violent

offenders represent other aspects of the offender profile of murderers
and assaulters. In particular, most current research indicates that violent
offenders are a product of both forces of nature and nurture, but growing
up in a “bad” learning environment seems to be more important than
having “bad” genes.

As would be predicted from Bandura’s social learning theory and his idea
of “behavioral modeling”, violent offenders often have a family history of
abuse and neglect. In terms of their own criminal histories, persons
arrested for murder and aggravated assault generally have less extensive
criminal records than other offenders and they don’t typically specialize
(i.e., murderers who have prior arrests often have priors for non-violent
offenses [drugs, petty larceny], not murder). There is also not a
consistent pattern of escalation from non-violent to violent offenses for
murders and aggravated assaulters. Instead, their criminal records are a
sporadic mix--most have no prior violent arrest history, some start their
criminal careers with a minor property offending and move back and
forth between these minor offenses and serious violent crimes, and a
small number of them have persistent and chronic (i.e., long term)
history of involvement in acts of violence.

A remaining element of the offender's profile of murderers and

assaulters involves the amount of planning and premeditation in the
commission of these crimes. As reflected in the legal distinction between
1st degree murders and voluntary manslaughters, a distinction can be
made between planned or premeditated acts (that is, those involving
rational planning and the relative weighing of costs and benefits) and
impulsive or spontaneous acts (that is, those in which the offender is
guided by the "heat of passion”).

Contrary to TV profiles of murderers as meticulous planners/calculators,

research on homicide and other physical assaults indicates that most of
these violent offenses are spontaneous acts, triggered by a trivial
altercation or argument that quickly escalates in the heat of passion. The
motive recorded by the police in nearly half of all homicides is
spontaneous outbursts in the context of mutual brawls and
arguments. Even in felony murder cases (homicides during the
commission of other felonies), the majority of these killings are often
situationally induced and rarely involve premeditation or planning to kill
someone in this setting. The fact that many homicide convictions are for
voluntary manslaughters is further evidence of the lack of premeditation
and planning in the typical homicide.

Copyright @2024 134

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

5. Victim Profiles for Murder and Aggravated Assault

Victims and offenders of both homicide and physical assault are generally
similar in terms of their gender, race, and age. Analyses of UCR
Supplementary Homicide Reports (see SHR 2014 [EZASHR]; Puzzanchera,
Chamberlin, and Kang 2020; Miethe and Regoeczi 2004) and NCVS data
indicate the following patterns about the social profile of victims of
violence and their offenders:

• Over three-fourths (78%) of homicide victims are males and the

remaining 22% are females. Other males are also the offenders in
most homicides involving male victims--the major exception is the
10-15% of homicides involving wives and girlfriends killing their
male partners. Males also kill the vast majority of female victims.

• Over half (55%) of the victims of homicide are Black, 42% are
white, and the remaining 3% are “other races”. The victim and
offender are of the same race in the vast majority (83%) of
homicides (SHR 2019). Over 90% of homicides involving
acquaintances and family members are intraracial killings (i.e.,
same race) and about 70% of stranger homicides involve persons
of the same race (Fox and Zawitz 2003).

• About one-third (30%) of homicide victims are under 25 years

old. The vast majority of homicide victims and offenders are
within the same general age group--i.e., juveniles typically kill
other juveniles, senior citizens kill other elderly people. The major
exceptions to this “age homogeneity” pattern involve (1) child
homicides (i.e., killings of infants and preteen children) in which
the killer is typically a parent and (2) robbery homicides in which
younger offenders may kill older victims in street muggings and
robberies of convenience stores.

• Persons with the greatest risks of aggravated assault victimization

are female, young (18-24), single (i.e., never married, separated,
or divorced), those who make less than $7500 per year, and
individuals that live in central cities (NCVS 2019).

The similarity of the victims and offenders of murder and assaults is also
shown in the examination of the victim-offender relationship in these
crimes. In particular, about 24% of homicide victims and offenders are
family members (SHR 2019). Among these domestic violence homicides,
the killing of wives is about 4 times more common than killing of
husbands. An additional 56% of homicides involve acquaintances (e.g.,

Copyright @2024 135

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

acquaintances, friends, neighbors, co-workers). Only about one-fifth

(20%) of homicides involve strangers. The prevalence of homicides
among persons with familial or other primary relationships provides
additional support for this idea of widespread similarity between victims
and offenders of lethal or serious violence.

Another aspect of the victim’s profile in violent crime involves the

concept of victim precipitation. When applied to homicide, victim
precipitation refers to situations in which the victim is the first person to
resort to physical force that ultimately leads to their death (see Miethe et
al. 2006:27). Estimates of victim precipitation in homicide range from
about 20% to over 50%. The fact that a large proportion of homicides are
voluntary manslaughters (i.e., killings done in the heat of passion and
under adequate victim provocation) suggests that victim precipitation is a
common feature of most criminal homicides.

Watch Video Crim29:

Victim Precipitation

In addition, a justifiable homicide that is done in self-defense is the classic

example of a victim-precipitated homicide. So, when you add these two
types of homicides together, victim precipitation is found to be a major
etiological factor in the vast majority of all homicides.
In the case of aggravated assaults, victim precipitation refers to the same
general process of the victim initiating the offense by physical actions.

A small proportion of aggravated assaults (10-25%) are found to be victim

precipitated, but less research has been done to systematically assess its
prevalence for this type of crime. The salience of victim precipitation in
homicide, however, is clearly revealed in the classic study of Philadelphia
homicides in the 1950s by Marvin Wolfgang. His conclusion about
homicide was that “it is merely a matter of chance in most cases who
ends up being labeled the victim and offender in homicide”. This suggests
that the victim plays a major contributory role in most homicide
situations.

Research on the dangerousness of particular occupations gives another

indication of the risks of violent victimization for particular types of

Copyright @2024 136

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

people. National estimates in the 1990s suggest that about two million
people in the U.S. are victims of violent crime in the workplace every
year. The number and rate of violent victimization per 1,000 workers in
the most dangerous occupations and other jobs are listed in the table
below.

From a criminal opportunity perspective, there are differences in the

dangerousness of various occupations because some jobs increase the
employee’s exposure to motivated offenders, risky and vulnerable
situations, and their perceived attractiveness as targets for victimization.
For example, law enforcement and correction officers, by the nature of
their job itself, have high exposure to criminal offenders. In contrast, taxi
drivers have high risks of violent victimization because they work alone,
often drive around in dangerous nighttime hours, have many contacts
with strangers, and carry money that makes them attractive targets for
personal robbery.

6. Situational Elements in Homicide and Aggravated Assaults

Previous applications of criminal opportunity theories indicate that there

are three necessary elements for homicide and assault: (a) an offender,
(b) a victim, and (c) a situational context for the crime (Miethe and
Regoeczi 2004). The situational context includes aspects of the physical
setting (i.e., dangerous places, dangerous times), offense attributes (e.g.,
weapon use, co-offenders, alcohol/drug use), and the nature of

Copyright @2024 137

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

interpersonal dynamics between the parties that increase the likelihood

of these criminal acts.

Dangerous Places: The most dangerous location for homicides and

aggravated assaults is the physical space in and around the victim’s
home. The higher risks of violent victimization for this location is due to
several factors, including the fact that (1) people spend more time at
their home than any other location, (2) most violent offenders victimize
family members and other known parties (e.g., acquaintances, friends,
neighbors) who live with or near them, and (3) the closed physical
structure of homes and norms of privacy (e.g., “minding one’s own
business”) often prevent outsiders from early intervention in domestic
disputes before they become murders and aggravated assaults.

The primary “hot spots” for physical assaults by strangers include the
areas surrounding the following public locations: bars, other
entertainment establishments, parking lots, and subway/bus stops. The
dangerousness of these public places is due primarily to (1) one’s visibility
and accessibility to strangers in these locations, (2) the greater likelihood
of victims being alone [in areas like parking lots and bus stops], and (3)
the consumption of alcohol in bars and other entertainment
establishments which may weaken inhibitions and impede
judgments. While much attention has been given to tragic incidents of
lethal violence on school campuses (e.g., the mass murders at Sandy
Hook Elementary School, Columbine High School, and Virginia Tech),
most schools are relatively safe locations and are not usually classified as
“hot spots” for serious acts of physical violence. A similar conclusion is
true of “workplace” homicides and lethal carjacking on public
streets/highways--that is, acts of lethal/serious violence occur in both of
these locations, but they are relatively rare events.

Dangerous Times: While the FBI’s “Crime Clock” (e.g., a homicide occurs
every 31 minutes, an aggravated assault every 39 seconds) suggests that
acts of serious physical violence are uniform over time, this assumption is
clearly wrong. Instead, one’s risks of homicide and assault victimization
vary dramatically over different hours of the day, days of the week, and
seasons in the year. The nature of these dangerous times and
explanations for them include the following:

• Nighttime hours (6pm to 6am) are far more dangerous than

daytime hours (6am to 6pm). The lower risks of violent
victimization in daytime hours is due in part to the greater
constraints/regulations imposed by either work (i.e., 8am to 5pm)
or school (8am to 3pm) schedules. In contrast, both offenders

Copyright @2024 138

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

and victims are less restrained in hours after work/school, freeing

them up to participate in public leisure activity that may expose
them to risky/dangerous situations or returning them to home
environments that are physically abusive. For stranger assaults,
the cover of darkness at night may encourage the likelihood of
criminal behavior because it increases offenders' anonymity and
decreases their risk of getting caught (because fewer
bystanders/witnesses are around in nighttime hours).

• Weekends (especially Friday and Saturday nights) are more

dangerous than weekdays. For most people, weekends are less
regulated by work/school schedules and there is more
discretionary time on these days to engage in public leisure
activities. Based on routine activity/lifestyle theories of
victimization, people’s risks of being crime victims are increased
by their exposure to risky/dangerous situations outside the home-
-- given higher levels of leisure activity on weekends (e.g., going
out at nighttime, drinking/partying), higher rates of violence on
weekends would therefore be expected.

• Summer months have higher rates of violent crime than other

seasons of the year. Explanations for this seasonality effect
include (1) the higher levels of public leisure activity in summer
months and (2) the adverse effects of heat and crowding on
human behavior--that is, both heat and crowding increase
irritability in all animals and that frustration/irritability, in turn,
increases the likelihood of displaced aggression toward any
available target. It is important to note that this seasonality effect
varies by region of the country. For example, in areas with
moderate winters and extremely hot summers (e.g., Las Vegas,
Phoenix, Los Angeles), this seasonality effect is less dramatic. In
contrast, there is no clear evidence of the “cabin fever” effect--
the belief that high rates of domestic violence in winter months
occur in extremely cold and snow-bound areas (e.g., Alaska,
Montana, Minnesota) because the weather prohibits people from
leaving their homes and domestic partners end up physically
abusing each other as a consequence of this isolation.

Copyright @2024 139

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

Watch Video Crim30:

Lunar Cycle and Crime

• Some holidays (especially Thanksgiving and Christmas) tend to

have higher rates of violence than other days of the year. Over
these particular holidays, family members reunite after being
away from each other (e.g., kids return from college, other family
members visit in-laws) and the wider consumption of alcohol on
these occasions may reduce inhibitions and refuel old
arguments/disputes. These are some of the possible reasons why
these particular holidays are more prone to homicides and
aggravated assaults.

Offense Attributes: Characteristics of offenses that may enable and

constrain their occurrence include the type of weapon used, the presence
of co-offenders and multiple victims, and whether substance abuse (i.e.,
alcohol drug use) was involved. The prevalence and nature of these
offense attributes for homicide and aggravated assaults are summarized
below:

• Weapon Use: The lethal

weapon in the majority of U.S.
homicides is a firearm and it is
typically a handgun. Over the
20th century, firearms have
been the lethal weapon in
anywhere between 60% and
70% of the U.S. homicides each year. In 2019, nearly three
fourths (73%) of the homicides known to the police were
committed with a firearm, 11% involved knives or cutting
instruments, 4% involved personal weapons (e.g., hands, fists,
feet), 3% involved blunt objects, and the remaining 9% were
committed with other dangerous weapons or by an unknown type
of weapon (SHR 2019).

Copyright @2024 140

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

Gun homicides are equally likely across all regions of the country,
but they vary by the gender, age, and the circumstances
surrounding the homicide. In particular, men are more likely to
use guns in homicides than women.

The use of knives and other sharp objects is more common among
female offenders. The prevalence of gun homicides is greatest
when the victim is a teenager (84% are gun deaths) and lowest for
pre-teens (24% of victims between 1-12 years old were killed with
guns). The most prevalent circumstances of gun homicides are
“gangland killings” (95% of done with guns), juvenile gang killings
(91%), narcotic/drug slayings (82%) and robbery homicides (75%).

Several properties of firearms explain their prevalence as

lethal weapons for homicide: (1) guns equalize strength
differences by gender and size (i.e., both physically weak
and strong people can kill with guns) and (2) it is easier to
commit lethal injuries with guns because other methods
(especially the use of hands/fist/clubs) may require
greater rage to inflict multiple blows to kill an assault
victim. The wide availability of guns in American society
further enhances their use as the lethal weapon in
homicides. In early periods of American history (e.g.,
colonial times, pre-Civil War) when guns were an
expensive luxury available only to the wealthy, homicides
were committed with other weapons like knives and clubs.

Watch Video Crim31:

Guns and Crime

While the use of firearms in aggravated assaults has

increased over time, the most common weapons in these
crimes are blunt objects (e.g., clubs, sticks, bottles,
rocks/bricks) and personal weapons (e.g., hands, fists,
feet). About 28% of aggravated assaults were committed
with firearms compared to about one-fourth (25%)
involving personal weapons (e.g., hands, fists, feet) and
18% involving knives and other cutting instruments (UCR
2019).

Copyright @2024 141

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

• Co-Offenders and Multiple Victims: Most homicides and

aggravated assault are committed in the context of one offender
and one victim. Multiple victims are found in about 11% of
homicide situations and about one-fifth of homicides (20%)
involve multiple offenders (UCR 2019). When multiple offenders
are involved in physical assaults, they often occur in the context
of youth violence or in acts of vigilante justice and hate crimes.
The group context for these violent acts is often explained by the
theory of social facilitation---this theory suggests the presence of
co-offenders facilitates/encourages violence because these other
people provide both subtle and direct pressure on individuals to
commit violent assaults to affirm their masculine identity. In the
relatively rare situation of homicides involving multiple victims,
the offender is often a male family member (who kills his wife and
kids) or a disgruntled employee (who kills co-workers in his
workplace). Many of the offenders who kill multiple family
members later commit suicide (called murder-suicide).

Although cases of multiple victim/offender violence

receive the most media attention,
the empirical reality is that the
typical homicide and aggravated
assault involves only one victim
and offender.

• Alcohol/Drug Use: Criminological

research has found that drug and
alcohol use is a major situational factor in violent crime. National
estimates are that about one-half of the persons in prison for
murder or assaults were under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or
both at the time of their offense (Miethe et al 2006:32; BJS
1999). Case studies of homicide incidents also reveal high rates of
alcohol use among the victims of lethal violence as well. The
crime-producing impact of alcohol on violent behavior is due to its
adverse influence on cognitive reasoning and the weakening of
social inhibitions.

Over the last two decades, illicit drug and alcohol have also been
linked to criminal violence in several additional ways. First, the
sellers and buyers of illicit drugs (especially crack cocaine in the
late 1980s) competed with other drug distributors and violence
was a primary means of reducing this competition. Second, drug
sellers have been violently attacked by buyers who are trying to

Copyright @2024 142

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

steal their drug supplies or cash to support their own drug habits.
Third, the group context of street-level drug and alcohol usage in
many metropolitan areas (coupled with the reduced inhibitions
associated with drug/alcohol abuse) are the types of situational
contexts in which a rather trivial comment or personal affront
may quickly escalate into a violent attack (Miethe et al 2006: 32).

Interpersonal Dynamics: Homicides and aggravated assaults are criminal

events that are characterized by a dynamic interplay between its victims
and offenders in time and space. Particular elements of the situational
context both enable and constrain the likelihood that interpersonal
encounters will result in a violent act. A primary factor in determining
the nature of these interpersonal dynamics in homicides and other
physical assaults is the motives and circumstances surrounding these
crimes.

Homicides and aggravated assaults are motivated by a wide variety of

instrumental (i.e., goal-directed) and expressive (i.e., spontaneous,
impulsive) factors. Many offenders commit these acts in the course of
sudden disputes and arguments (e.g., affronts to one’s masculine
identity, arguments about infidelity, money and/or drugs) and others
commit these offenses as calculated acts for profit or to avoid detection
from other criminal activity. According to national UCR data (2009), the
primary context or circumstance underlying homicides are ranked in the
following order:

1. Arguments. There were 3,125 homicides known to the

police in 2015 that involved arguments over money,
property, or other issues. This circumstance represented
about 52% of 5,958 homicides with a known motive in this
time period.

2. Juvenile Gang Killings. A total of 604 (10%) of homicides

were classified as involving juvenile gang activity.
However, because different jurisdictions may use different
definitions of “gang-related” homicides, this estimate
should be viewed with caution.

3. Robbery. A felony robbery was the circumstance for 595

homicides in 2015, representing 10% of all homicides with
a known motive in this time period.

4. Narcotic Drug Law Violations. A total of 468 homicides

were linked to narcotic drug activity. These homicides

Copyright @2024 143

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

represented about 8% of all homicides with a known

motive in 2015.

5. Alcohol-Related Brawls. A brawl due to the influence of

alcohol was the major circumstance for 112 homicides
(2%) with a known motive in 2015.

The idea that homicides and aggravated assaults involve a dynamic

interplay between the two parties (the victim and offender) and a
facilitating social context is best represented by the work of David
Luckenbill on homicides as “situated transactions”. Based on the analysis
of police narrative descriptions of homicides, Luckenbill (1979) suggests
that a dynamic sequence of stages underlies most homicide situations. As
summarized by Miethe and Deibert (2007: 29-30), the following stages
form the basis for Luckenbill's situational transactions in homicides:

• Stage 1: The victim makes an opening move that is consider by

the offender as an offense to “face”. This action by the victim
typically involves a direct verbal expression, the refusal to
cooperate or comply with the offender’s request, or a nonverbal,
physical gesture. This initial action by the victim fits with other
people’s research on “victim precipitated” crimes.

• Stage 2: The offender interprets the victim’s previous move as

personally offensive. The offender learns the meaning of the
victim’s move (e.g., was it insulting and intentional?) from
inquiries made of the victim or audience.

• Stage 3: The apparent affront could evoke different responses

(e.g., excuse the violation, flee the scene, or ignore it), but in
these lethal transactions it initiates a retaliatory move aimed at
restoring face and demonstrating strong character. Most of these
retaliatory moves begin with the offender issuing a verbal or
physical challenge.

• Stage 4: The victim and offender come to a “working” agreement

with the proffered definition of the situation as one of
violence. The working agreement to use violence is reached by
the victim’s direct actions or by the offender’s misinterpretation
of their actions.

• Stage 5: The offender and, in many cases, the victim become

committed to battle. Both parties have stake in this battle (e.g.,
saving their face, building or maintaining their wider

Copyright @2024 144

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

reputation). Commitment to battle is enhanced by the available

of weapons to support verbal threats and challenges. The actual
physical interchange is often brief and precise (e.g., a single lethal
shot, stab, or blow).

• Stage 6: The transaction terminates once the victim has

fallen. During this final stage, the offender either flees the scene,
remains voluntarily, or they are physically subdued by audience
members until the police arrive.

From the perspective of crime prevention, the value of Luckenbill’s

transactional analysis is that it suggests that homicides and other violent
acts may be preempted at various points in these interpersonal
encounters. The early intervention of bystanders and the refusal of the
ultimate homicide victims to engage in these “character contests” with
the offender by simply walking away without further comment/actions
may be the type of behaviors that are sufficient to prevent verbal
confrontations from escalating into lethal assaults.

Violent Prevention and Intervention Efforts

Efforts to prevent and control acts of interpersonal aggression include a

diverse array of intervention and prevention programs. The typical
criminal justice response to homicide and aggravated assault is crime
control through the incarceration and incapacitation of these
offenders. As a group, violent offenders (especially murderers) are given
the most severe punishment.

As a method of early prevention, a number of “social betterment”

programs have been developed in the last two decades to address the
social and structural factors linked to frustration and aggression (e.g.,
restricted economic and educational opportunities, limited job prospects)
among many inner city youths. Specific programs designed to
moderate/mediate aggression (e.g., various types of anger management
activities) have also emerged to help people learn to deal with their
anger issues in more constructive ways.

Another approach to violence prevention involves the use of various risk

assessment instruments to successfully identify chronic youth offenders
who require extensive supervision and counseling. The research on
chronic offenders provides support for the “80-20” rule--that 80% of the
crime is committed by 20% of the people. Major reductions in violence
would occur if we could identify these chronic offenders early in their

Copyright @2024 145

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

criminal careers. Unfortunately, our ability to accurately predict risk has

been limited.

From a criminal opportunity perspective, efforts to reduce our risks of

violence should involve the avoidance of risky/dangerous situations and
increasing our social/physical guardianship (e.g., increased security
around our home, walking in public places at night with others). While
some groups (e.g., National Rifle Association) oppose any restrictions on
the gun ownership (and use evidence of “more guns, less crime” as a
justification for their views), many people believe that the wide
availability of guns in our society promotes more crime (not less) by
giving volatile and angry individuals immediate access to a lethal weapon
that can quickly kill multiple people from a distance.

Finally, serious reductions in violence in America are unlikely until major

changes occur in our culture. As described in the beginning of this
lecture, violence has been a fundamental part of American society since
its inception. To seriously do something about this cultural heritage of
violence requires a fundamental change in the pro-violence values and
behaviors that are widely promoted in television and other media
outlets, the predominance of agonistic behavior (violent threats and
actions) in our child-rearing practices and interpersonal relationships, and
the perpetuation of this acceptance of values in other aspects of our daily
lives.

Copyright @2024 146

Criminology Chapter 19: Homicide and Aggravated Assault

Application Questions:

1. Explain how physical provocation by the victim may influence the

legal classification of killing as a criminal or non-criminal homicide
and (2) as a specific type of criminal homicide.

2. Identify some of the social changes in American society that are

contributory factors to the apparent drop in murders and aggravated
assaults over the last decade.

3. What are the major explanations for the high rate of homicide
offending and victimization in the U.S. among young, Black males?

4. Provide a least 5 different explanations for why homicide rates are

higher in the U.S. than most other industrialized nation?

5. The relationship between gun ownership and crime is subject to

much debate and alternative interpretations. Provide two
explanations for why each of the following statements about the
effects of guns on crime may be true: (1) "more guns, more crime"
and (2) "more guns, less crime".

Copyright @2024 147

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

Chapter 20:
Mass Murder and Serial Killing

Objectives:

• Identify the definitional issues surrounding how we classify homicides as

mass murders and serial killings.

• Know the primary characteristics and relative prevalence of different

types of mass murders and serial killings.

• Identify the major differences in the causes and distribution of mass

murder, serial killing, and other types of criminal homicides.

• Recognize the primary theories used to explain the occurrence and

distribution of these types of homicides and their distribution over time
and place.

Mass murders and serial killings represent some of the most extreme forms of
lethal violence in any society. Although relatively infrequent compared to other
homicide offenders, mass murderers and serial killers often achieve the greater
media attention due to the particular elements of their crimes (e.g., the
motivations underlying their behavior, the gravity and depravity of their
offenses) and the lingering public terror that often results from their actions.

This chapter provides a review of the current knowledge about mass murderers
and serial killers. It begins with a discussion of conceptual and definitional issues
surrounding these types of homicide and then describes empirical estimates of
their prevalence and their social profiles (e.g. the most common offender, victim,
offense and situational elements associated with them), popular myths and
misconceptions about these killings, dominant theoretical explanations for
explaining them, and the criminal justice system’s response to these homicides.

Copyright @2024 148

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

Conceptual and Definitional Issues

At first glance, defining what constitutes a mass murderer and a serial killer
seems to be very straightforward. A mass murderer is anyone who kills multiple
people and a serial killer kills multiple people over time (i.e., serially). However,
consider whether or not the following individuals should be counted as mass
murderers or serial killers:
• Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City
on April 19, 1995 resulted in 168 deaths. McVeigh was convicted and
executed for these killings.

• Ted Bundy murdered at least 30 women in Washington and Florida between

1974 and 1978. Bundy was convicted of capital murder in Florida and
executed.

• Jack Kevorkian (“Dr. Death”) claimed that he helped at least 130 patients in
physician-assisted suicides. He was tried several times in U.S. courts for
assisting suicide, convicted of second-degree murder for one of these cases,
and served 8 years in prison.

• Political leaders give executive orders that result in the death of many
people. For example, Adolph Hitler ordered millions of people to
concentration camps and the gas chambers during the Holocaust of World
War II. As military dictator and President of Uganda, Idi Amin was responsible
for the killing of an estimated 300,000 citizens in his country in the 1970s.

Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network has killed and seriously injured
thousands of people across the world. The various military actions of former
U.S. President George W. Bush have led to the deaths of thousands of U.S.
soldiers and Iraqi/Afghani citizens.

For many of these individuals (i.e., McVeigh, Bundy, Hitler, Amin, bin Laden),
their classification as mass murderers and serial killers is subject to little debate.
However, the actions of both Kevorkian and Bush have also resulted in multiple
deaths over time, but their designation as serial killers is more controversial.
This ambiguity arises from the fact that the terms “mass murder” and “serial
killer” are social construction—i.e., their specific meaning is highly contextual,
dependent of the particular context in which they are applied and the personal
values/beliefs of the definer.

Copyright @2024 149

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

Some of the important contextual elements for defining mass murders and serial
killings include the number of victims and locations in which they occur, the time
frame of the killings, their motivations and legality, and the attributes of the
victims (see Egger 1984; FBI 2008; Hickey 2010). For example, soldiers who kill
their enemy during wartime are not usually counted as serial killers, but how do
we count extra-judicial killings by paramilitary forces, “death” squads or other
vigilante groups in countries with massive civil strife and political unrest? How
about the multiple deaths of workers and consumers due to organizations’
violations of safety/health standards? Is gross negligence or a higher legal
standard of criminal intent required to count these offenses as mass or serial
murders?

For any type of scientific estimate of the prevalence and social correlates of mass
murder and serial killing, definitional clarify is essential because the resulting
substantive conclusions about the nature of these killings is predicated on how
they are defined. In fact, previous studies of mass murders and serial killers
often reach somewhat different conclusions about the typical profile of these
offenders because they are using different definitions of them.

Definition of Mass Murder and Serial Murder

Drawing upon previous studies, specific definitions of mass murders and serial
killing are used in this chapter to summarize current knowledge about these
types of homicide. Accordingly, mass murders are defined here as “unlawful
killings of three or more victims by the same offender(s) in a single incident over
a short period of time”.1 Serial murders are defined as “unlawful killings of three
or more victims by the same offender(s) in separate events”.2 Compared to other
definitions of these concepts (see Holmes and Holmes 1998; Egger 1984), the
particular advantage of these definitions of mass murder and serial murder
include the following:

1
Other authors (e.g., White 2000) include 4 victims as the minimum number to be included
as a mass murder. However, we include “3 or more victims” in our definition to cover the
typical cases of mass killing of family members. These mass killings of family members have
been called “mini-mass murders” (Hickey 2010:10) because they tend to involve fewer
victims than other contexts of mass murder.

2
A national panel of researchers and law enforcement officials has debated the minimum
number of victims required for defining serial killing (see FBI 2008). This panel set this
minimum number at 2 victims for purposes of law enforcement investigations. Three
victims are considered the minimum number of victims in this chapter because it is the
number of victims that has been most commonly applied to serial killing in past research.
Other than the number of victims, this definition of serial murder is identical to the
definition of serial murder adopted by this national panel (see FBI 2008:12).

Copyright @2024 150

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

• These definitions restrict the domain of inquiry about multiple killings to

murders. By focusing exclusively on unlawful killings by the same offenders,
extra-judicial killings by paramilitary forces, death squads, and other vigilante
groups would be included under these definitions only if multiple deaths
were attributed to the same individuals within these groups. Under these
definitions, state-sponsored killings under executive orders for military action
within and outside a particular country would not be included as mass or
serial murders.

• The specification of the number of separate events permits a clearer

comparison between mass and serial murders. “Rage killings” that occur
over a short period of time (e.g., within hours apart or in the same day)
would be counted as mass murders because they represent the continuation
of the same behavioral incident. However, other types of “spree killings”
that take place over a longer period of time and involve separate physical
locations for offending would be classified as serial murders.

• These definitions provide generality because they do not restrict mass or

serial killing to particular groups (e.g., only male offenders, only socially
disadvantaged victims, only strangers), particular motivations (e.g., only
sexually-driven murders or terrorist attacks), or particular offense attributes
(e.g., only stalkers, only those who use excessive brutality). To count as a
case of serial killing, this definition also doesn’t explicitly specify a particular
amount of time (like 30 days or "cooling-off period") over which the
homicides occur (like the definitions used by Hickey 2005; Holmes and
Holmes 1998), but it does emphasize the importance of separate events for
distinguishing them from situations of mass murder.

Estimating the Prevalence of Mass and Serial Murders

Mass and serial murderers represent some of the most infamous killers in recent
human history. The holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge, the
massacre of Tutsis and Hutus villagers in Burundi, and the genocide and
democide in other world regions are grim reminders of the incredible number of
deaths directly attributable to collective acts of mass murder. The 9/11 terrorist
attacks, the Oklahoma City bombing, the school shootings at Columbine High
School and Virginia Tech, and the multiple serial killers of the late 1970s and
early 1980s (e.g., Berkowitz, Bianchi, Bundy, and Gacy) are the major symbols of
multiple homicides in recent American history.

Although lists of particular mass and serial murderers have been compiled in
previous research (see Fox, Levin and Quinet 2012; Hickey 2010; Holmes and

Copyright @2024 151

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

Holmes 2000), estimating the international and national prevalence of these

different types of multiple victim homicides is difficult for several reasons. First,
international comparisons are often problematic because of differences across
countries in the coverage and reliability of their police data on homicide.
Second, national police data on homicide (e.g., the FBI’s Supplementary
Homicide Reports) do not compile information on individual offenders over time,
prohibiting estimates of the frequency of serial murders. The prevalence of mass
murders, however, is estimable from these national police data. Third, existing
compilations of cases of serial killers derived from media accounts and other
historical records are limited by the scope of the coverage area, how these cases
are defined, and the reliability of the secondary sources.

The Prevalence of Mass Murders

The most comprehensive source for estimating the prevalence of mass murder in
the U.S. involves the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR). SHR
estimates of the relative prevalence of homicides involving two victims and three
or more victims per incident are summarized in the figure below.

Prevalence of Mass Murder Incidents by Number of Victims

Several patterns about the relative proportion of U.S. homicides involving

incidents with multiple victims are revealed in this graph. First, most U.S.
homicide incidents known to the police do not involve multiple victims. Multiple
homicide victims (i.e., 2 or more) were present in less than 5% of the homicide
incidents in any given year, whereas 95% of these killings involved a single
homicide victim. Second, among homicide incidents with multiple victims, the
largest proportion had 2 victims, representing about 3.5% percent of homicides

Copyright @2024 152

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

annually, and a less than 1% involved 3 or more victims. Third, the proportion of
homicide incidents with multiple victims has changed very little over time.
Lethal incidents involving 2 victims only varied from a low of 2.6% in 1990 to a
high of 4.0% in 2003. The low prevalence of mass murders with 3 or more
victims per incident is even more stable over this period.

Although rare events in terms of their proportional distribution among homicide

incidents, it is the actual number of incidents of mass murder that often drives
media attention and public concern about these killings. Based on SHR data, the
estimated number of incidents of mass murder involving 3 or more victims has
averaged around 116 incidents per year from 1980 to 2008. The estimated
number of incidents with 3 or more victims has changed very little over this time
period, averaging about 109 incidents per year in the 1980s, 122 per year in the
1990s, and about 117 per year from 2000 to 2008. A yearly average of about 12
mass murder incidents with 5 or more victims have occurred from 1980 to 2008.
Only about 11 of the nearly 15,000 homicide incidents in 2008 were mass
murders with 5 or more victims. Examples of the most infamous cases of mass
murder in the U.S. in the 21st century are shown in Table 20.1.

Given limited data and the lack of standard definitional criteria, it is more
difficult to estimate the relative prevalence of mass murders in other countries.
However, documented cases of mass killings within the context of civil unrest,
assassinations, and suicide bombings suggests that acts of mass murder with a
political motivation may be a more prevalent type of homicide in other parts of
the world (e.g., Africa, the Middle East,

Table 20.1: Examples of Mass Murders in the U.S. in the 21st Century

Incident Date Deaths

Terrorist attacks on World Trade Center and 9/11/2001 2,997
Pentagon.
Stephen Paddock killed 59 people at the Route
91 Harvest country music festival in Las Vegas. 10/1/2017 59
Seung-Hui Chin’s shooting of 52 students and
faculty at Virginia Tech before he killed himself 4/16/2007 32
Jiverly Wong killed 13 people at an immigration
center in Binghamton, New York before he 4/3/2009 13
committing suicide.
Robert Stewart shooting of patients and staff at
a nursing home in Cathage, North Carolina. 3/29/2009 8
Terry Ratzman shot 11 people during a church
service in Brookfield, Wisconsin before he 3/12/2005 7
committed suicide.
Andrea Yates drowned her 5 young children in
the bathtub of her home in Houston, Texas. 6/20/2001 5

Copyright @2024 153

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

Asian, and Central/South America). Individual cases of mass murder in other

countries have also received extensive media attention (see Table 20.2).
However, similar to the U.S. pattern, international incidents of mass murder by
individual offenders are most likely to represent the exceptional case even in
countries with the most civil unrest and political volatility.
Table 20.2: International Examples of Mass Murders in the 21st Century

Incident Date Deaths

Anders Behring Breivik was arrested as a suspect
in car bombing in Oslo, Norway that killed 8 7/22/2011 77
people. Later that day he is suspected of shooting
to death 69 people at nearby island youth camp.
A U.S. Army Sergeant is suspected of killing 16
civilians, including 9 children, in a nighttime 3/11/2012 16
shooting spree in Kandahar, Afghanistan.
Friedrich Leibacher entered the regional
Parliament building in Zug, Switzerland and shot 9/27/2001 14
over 30 people.
Derrick Bird killed 12 people and injured 11 others
in a shooting spree that began in Lamplugh, 6/2/2010 12
England.
Shi Yuejun killed 12 people and injured 4 others in
knife attacks over a 6-day period in Tonghua, 9/24/2006 12
China.

The Prevalence of Serial Murders

Compared to mass murders, estimating the prevalence of serial murders in any

country is far more difficult for several basic reasons. First, no national or
international criminal justice agency collects systematic data on either incidents
of serial killing or the number of serial killers. This is the case because most local
police reports of homicides submitted to national agencies (like the FBI's SHR
data) are incident-based records that do not track individual offenders over
incidents. Second, police data provide less reliable estimates of serial killing
incidents than mass murders because of the lower visibility and solvability of
their crimes. As multiple killings at one point in time, most mass murder
incidents immediately come to the attention of law enforcement and the
offender(s) are quickly apprehended or commit suicide. In contrast, the single-
victim homicide incidents of most serial killers have lower risks of detection and

Copyright @2024 154

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

arrest by police, especially when they conceal the body of their victims and prey
on strangers from disadvantaged and transient populations (e.g., prostitutes, the
homeless, runaways, illegal immigrants). When focusing exclusively on known
cases (i.e., apprehended suspects and the bodies of their victims), police-based
counts of serial killing may grossly misrepresent the nature and magnitude of
these crimes.

Despite the many problems with police data for making these estimates (see
Kiger 1990; Quinet 2007), various claims about the prevalence of serial killing in
the U.S. have derived from information contained in the FBI's annual crime
reports and SHR data. These inferences are based primarily on assumptions
about the victim-offender relationship in homicide and the nature of unsolved
homicides in police data.

In his book “Using Murder: The Social Construction of Serial Homicide” (1994),
Phillip Jenkins describes how claims of a serial killing epidemic in the early 1980s
were grossly overestimated by faulty inferences from FBI homicide data. The
statistical basis for this claim was the rise in the number of stranger homicides
and killings in which the identity of the offender and the victim-offender
relationship was unknown. However, the dubious inferential leap by justice
officials and various media outlets reporting this presumed epidemic involved
attributing all or a large proportion of these 5,000 stranger/unknown homicides
per year to the actions of serial killers.3 Although it is reasonable to assume that
serial killers are responsible for some stranger homicides and those with an
unknown victim-offender relationship, there is no credible evidence to support
the claim that serial killers commit the vast majority of these homicides.

Using a multitude of data sources and extrapolations, annual estimates of serial

murder victims and offenders in the U.S. exhibit enormous variation across
studies and over time. The highest annual estimates of 500 active serial killers
and 6,000 victims occurred in the 1980s (see Kiger 1990). Over this same
decade, however, Fox and Levin (2005) report an annual average of only 15 serial

3
Jenkins (1994) contends that these claims of a rampant rise in serial killing were
deliberately constructed for various political reasons (e.g., deflecting attention away from
the FBI’s adverse publicity surrounding civil rights violations and police corruption; helped
conservative groups to further demonize the various liberal causes [gay rights, women’s
movement, drug decriminalization] by linking this “moral decay” to the serial killing
epidemic). For purposes of cross-national comparisons, Jenkins’ (1994) study is important
because it illustrates how and why different jurisdictions, and even the same jurisdiction at
different points in time, may vary widely in their reported number of serial killings even
when the actual number of these killers is similar across and within jurisdictions over time.

Copyright @2024 155

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

killers and a range of 120 to 180 victims per year. For the years 1977 to 1992,
Egger (2003) provides an annual average of 13 known serial killers and 67
murder victims per year. Estimates of 40 active serial killers and 40 to 63 victims
per year are found in other studies (e.g., Hickey 2005). Finally, when
extrapolations on missing persons and unidentified deaths are applied to existing
estimates of serial killing, Quinet (2007) contends that the number of serial
murder victims in the U.S. may increase anywhere from 182 to 1,832 additional
victims per year. Even if this upper limit was the most accurate estimate of the
annual number of "hidden" victims, serial killings would still only represent only
a relatively small proportion of the total annual homicides in this country.

Similar to international data on mass murders, reliable estimates of the

prevalence of serial murder in other nations and world regions are limited by
definitional issues, the lack of comprehensive data, and sampling biases.
However, chronologies and a few empirical studies of serial killings have been
conducted in several international contexts, including the United Kingdom,
Europe, South Africa, and Japan (see Aki 2003; Canter, Missen and Hodge 1997;
Gorby 2000; Hickey 2010). Canter et al (1997), for example, estimate that about
five active serial killers are present in Great Britain at any given time since 1860.
Although fewer in sheer numbers than their American counterparts, these
authors also find that British serial killers account for a higher proportion of all
homicide victims than is true of U.S. serial killers. The annual estimates of
Canadian serial murderers range from 5 to 30 (Ratner 1996). For Japan and
other countries, cases of serial killing by individual offenders also appear to be
relatively rare compared to U.S. patterns (Hickey 2010).

In addition to differences in their relative prevalence, previous research also

indicates that the nature of the killing contexts for serial murders differs across
countries. For example, Hickey (2010) finds that U.S. serial killers are more likely
than their foreign counterparts to be geographically mobile, use guns as the
lethal weapon, and kill with accomplices (i.e., "team killers"). However, both
U.S. and foreign serial killers are most likely to victimize strangers and women.

Typologies of Mass Murderers and Serial Killers

Various typologies of mass murderers and serial killers have been developed to
identify patterns of similarity and differences among these offenders. Commonly
used typologies of mass and serial killers include those based on (1) victim
attributes and the crime’s physical location, (2) the nature of the crime scene
(i.e., organized versus disorganized killers), (3) the motivations for offending, and
(4) other offender attributes (e.g., their gender, geographical mobility).

Copyright @2024 156

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

Classifications of Mass Murderers

The existing literature on mass murderers categorizes these offenders in a

variety of ways (see Fox, Levin and Quinet 2012; Hickey 2010; Holmes and
Holmes 2000; Levin and Fox 1985). Mass murderers are often distinguished by
their mental or psychological state (e.g., psychotic killers), intrinsic/extrinsic
motivations (e.g., profit-, sex-, ideological-motives), and victim/location
attributes (e.g., family slayings, school shootings, workplace homicides).

Based on their study of over 1,200 U.S. mass murderers from 1976 to 2009, Fox
et al (2012) report that family slayings are the single most common context for
multiple killings in this country. Over this time period, these authors counted
248 incidents of mass slayings in which 4 or more family members were killed.
Most of these family killings involve husbands who kill their wives and children.
The motivations and triggering events for these family killings are diverse,
ranging from a selfish desire to punish their spouse and children for some
transgression to a somewhat more altruistic, but equally deadly, motive of killing
their family to protect them from “the misery of living in a cold, cruel world” (Fox
et al. 2012:180).

Another common context for mass murder in contemporary American society is

the workplace. These homicides are often restricted to killings that derive from
employment disputes involving current employees, former employees, and/or
disgruntled customers. Fox et al. (2012:182) refer to these mass murders as “the
workplace avenger” to emphasize that their killings are often motivated by
revenge for a perceived or real injustice against them. While stereotypically
portrayed as spontaneous, uncontrollable acts of indiscriminate carnage,
empirical analyses of workplace homicides indicate that most of these offenders
plan their attacks in advance, act with calm deliberation during the killing
incident, and tend to be selective in targeting their victims (see Fox et al. 2012).
Similar motivations and behavioral patterns in mass murders involving school
shootings (e.g., the killings at Columbine High School).

Mass murders with ideological motivations include acts of hate crimes, genocide,
and democide. These mass murders involve both individual offenders acting as
“lone wolves” and groups of individuals (e.g., death squads, paramilitary forces,
vigilante groups) who operate within and outside the domain of state-supported
violence. Acts of domestic and international terrorism are the most recent
manifestations of this type of mass murders. Compared to other types of mass
murder, these ideologically-driven killings are often the most deadly in terms of
the number of victims per incident.

Copyright @2024 157

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

Organized and Disorganized Serial Killers

One of the first typologies of serial killers distinguishes them based on the nature
and characteristics of the crime scene. Agents of the FBI’s Behavioral Science
Unit popularized this type of crime scene profiling and it is now referred to as
criminal investigation analysis (Ressler, Burgess, and Douglas 1988). The core
assumption underlying this approach is that the systematic examination of the
crime scene provides key insights into the offender’s psychological profile.
Ressler et al (1988) initially employed this investigative method to develop a
typology of “organized” and “disorganized” serial sexual murderers. However,
this typology is also relevant for making distinctions among other types of serial
killers and mass murderers.

According to Ressler et al (1988), organized killers have high intelligence, are

socially competent, target strangers, and demand victims to be submissive. The
classic organized killer is often characterized as a sadistic, psychopathic predator
who ruthlessly plans his murders so that he will not get caught (Ressler et al
1988; Hickey 2005). Elaborate fantasy drives them to mentally rehearse their
murders over and over again. To heighten the fantasy and to help relive it,
organized killers often take souvenirs from the victim or crime scene. For crime
scene investigators, these psychological components of the organized murderer
can be revealed through the systematic and comprehensive analysis of the crime
scene (see Table 20.3).

Disorganized killers are qualitatively distinct from organized murderers in their

personality traits, motivations, and characteristics of the crime scene. These
murderers have below-to-average intelligence, are socially immature, may know
their victims, and spontaneously erupt into acts of rage-motivated killings
(Ressler et al 1988). Disorganized killers are typically psychotic (suffering from a
severe mental disorder) and the nature of the crime scene and their response
typography reflects this personality trait. Because of low social competence,
Ressler et al (1988) contend that disorganized killers commit their crimes in their
"comfort zone", usually in a geographical area that they know well. They also
use blitz or ambush attacks on their victims with little planning/calculation and
little regard for the clues that are left behind. The particular weapon used in
their murders is not usually brought to the crime scene. Instead, any available
object at the crime scene (e.g., knife, club, rock) may serve as the murder
weapon.

Copyright @2024 158

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

Table 20.3: Typology of Organized and Disorganized Killers

Organized Mass Killers Disorganized Mass Killers

Offense Planned Spontaneous Offenses

Victim is Targeted Stranger Victim in Known Location
Personalized Victim Depersonalized Victim
Controlled Conversation Minimal Conversation
Controlled Crime Scene Random and Sloppy Crime Scene
Demands Submissive Victims Sudden Violence to Victim
Restraints Used Minimal Use of Restraints
Aggressive Acts Prior to Death Sexual Acts after Death
Body Hidden Body Left in View
Weapon or Evidence Absent Weapon/Evidence often Present
Transports Victim or Body Body Left at Death Scene

Source: Ressler et al (1988)

Motive-Based Typologies of Serial Murderers

Much has been written about the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations underlying
the actions of serial killers. These motives include the psychic thrill or “rush”
from the act and process of killing, lust and sexual perversion, money, social
recognition, and feelings of empowerment, self-efficacy, and sexual competence
that may derive from serial predation. Although some serial killers are
motivated exclusively by a specific concern, most serial murders kill for a
diversity of reasons (Hickey 2010).

Holmes and DeBurger (1988) have developed one of the most popular motive-
based typology of serial killers. Their typology distinguishes between (1)
visionary-type killers, (2) mission-type killers, (3) hedonistic killers, and (4)
power/control killers. The distinct features of these types of serial killers and
their crimes include the following:
• Visionary-type serial killers kill in response to voices or visions that emanates
from a psychotic break from reality (Holmes and DeBurger 1988). Their killing
represents an attempt to exorcise these demonic voices and visions. Their
victims are selected at random within the offender’s “comfort zone” near
their home or place of work. They are act-focused murderers (i.e., kill their
victims quickly in a few minutes), killing their victims without
preparation/planning and using any available weapon to commit the lethal
act.

Copyright @2024 159

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

• Mission-oriented serial killers’ primary motivation is to rid the

community/society of certain groups of people. Some of these serial killers
target the elderly and others focus on prostitutes, children, or particular
racial/ethnic groups that are considers "undesirable" (Holmes and DeBurger
1988). When done by established governments or by paramilitary groups
during times of civil strife, mission-oriented killings would also include acts of
genocide and extra-judicial executions. Their mission to kill “these people” is
often linked to some perceived injustice that this group has allegedly
perpetrated against the offender. These serial murders plan their killings,
select particular victims, and use various lethal weapons (e.g., gas/chemicals,
bombs) that are best designed to achieve their mission.

• Hedonistic-type serial killers are pleasure seekers who derive personal

satisfaction and other instrinsic rewards from their killings. According to
Holmes and DeBurger (1988), there are three distinct types of hedonistic
serial killers: (1) lust killers, (2) thrill killers, and (3) comfort killers. Lust killers
are process-focused killers who get satisfaction from the entire homicidal
process (i.e., a process that begins with sexual fantasy, selecting and stalking
particular victims, the act of killing them, and ends with post-murder
activities and the continuation of this process over again). Thrill killers are
motivated by an assortment of intrinsic rewards that they anticipate from
the “hunt” and the excitement of “living on the edge”. In contrast, financial
motives guide the actions of comfort killers and offenders in this category are
far more likely to be women than any other type of serial killer.

• Power/control-motivated serial killers are guided by the intrinsic rewards that

derive from controlling and exerting power over helpless victims. These
killers often enjoy watching their victims cower, cringe, and beg for mercy
(Holmes and DeBurger 1988). They may also sexually abuse their victims as a
personal affirmation of their power and control over them. These offenders
evade capture longer than most serial killers because they are often cunning
and intelligent, plan their offenses, and kill across a wider geographical area.

In terms of the relative prevalence of these motives-based categories, the

available data suggests that serial sexual murders and power/control killings are
the most dominant forms and vision-driven killings are relatively rare. For
example, Hickey (2010:219) indicates that most male serial killers are sexually
motivated (55% of them were always or sometimes motivated by sex), followed
by control/power (31%), money (25%), and enjoyment (17%). “Mental
problems” are recorded as the motive for only a small proportion (6%) of male
serial killers in this sample.

Copyright @2024 160

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

Gender-Based Typologies

There are substantial gender differences in the relative prevalence and nature of
mass murderers and serial killers. Similar to their relative distribution among
single-victim homicides, women are also far less likely than men to be formally
recognized as mass or serial killers. However, female mass murderers and female
serial killers are often qualitatively distinct from their male counterparts in terms
of the dominant social context of their killings.

Female mass murderers are seldom involved in workplace killings and they are
even more rare in cases of multiple murders on school property (Fox et al. 2012).
Instead, when women are involved in multiple murders, they typically kill family
members. The killings by Andrea Yates (she drowned her 5 children in 2001) and
Susan Smith (she drowned her 2 children by driving them into a lake in 1994)
represent widely publicized cases of multiple murders of family members by
female offenders.

In the context of serial killing, female murders are generally more likely than
males to kill for financial reasons. These comfort-type killings by women are
more apt than other serial killings to involve family members as victims and the
use of more subtle killing methods (e.g., poison, staged accidents, suffocations)
to avoid suspicion. Previous research (see Fox et al. 2012; Hickey 2010) also
indicates that women represent the majority of known serial murders by health
care workers (e.g., nurses, doctors, emergence medical technicians, medical
assistants). These “medical murders” by women are motivated primarily by
intrinsic needs of power and control (Fox et al. 2012). In contrast, male serial
murderers kill for a more diverse array of reasons, target a wider range of
potential victims, and use a greater variety of lethal weapons.

Mobility/Place-Based Typology of Serial Killers

Another way of classifying serial killers involves differences in their geographical

mobility and location of their crimes. Hickey (2010:194-195) identifies three
types of serial killers based on these characteristics: (1) local serial killers who kill
within the same general area of a city or county and do not kill in more than one
state, (2) travelers who are far more mobile and kill in multiple states and/or
countries, and (3) place-specific serial killers who use their own home or places
of work as killing sites.

Similar to other typologies, both the prevalence and nature of serial murders
vary widely across each category of this mobility/place-based typology. For
example, local killers represent the most prevalent type of serial killers in the
U.S. and elsewhere (Hickey 2010). These local killers are also responsible for a

Copyright @2024 161

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

greater overall number of homicide victims than any other group. In contrast,
the traveler serial killer represents the more stereotypical image of these
offenders, but Hickey (2010) reports that only about one-third of serial murders
prey on victims in multiple states. Place-based serial killers differ from the other
categories in their greater prevalence among female offenders and the wider use
of “quiet” killing methods (e.g., poison, suffocation) that reduce their risks of
investigation and detection as murderers. The elderly and people with serious
health problems (e.g., hospital and hospice patients) are the most vulnerable
victims to these place-based serial killers.

The Social Profile of Multiple Murders

The social profile of mass and serial murders involves the particular elements of
these crimes (e.g., the offender, victim, offense, and situational attributes). The
primary aspects of this social profile derived from previous empirical research on
mass and serial killers are described below.

Offender Characteristics

Empirical studies of the offender attributes of known serial killers (see Fox et al.
2012; Hickey 2010) indicate that they are most often White males, start killing in
their late 20s, have average intelligence, work in various occupational groups
(e.g., skilled and unskilled labor), have prior criminal records, and their killings
are motivated primarily by intrinsic rewards (e.g., lust, power/control,
excitement/thrill). Of these offender attributes, serial killers differ substantially
from other violent offenders in terms of their race (e.g., Blacks are less common
among known serial killers than non-serial killers),4 their older age (e.g., most
non-serial murderer kill in their late teens and early 20s), and more extensive
prior criminal/institutional histories. Mass murders and serial killers are similar

4
Hickey (2010) reports that the proportion of known cases of male serial killers in the U.S. involving
Black offenders has increased appreciably from about 20% before 1995 to about 44% between the
years 1995 and 2004. However, rather than reflecting changes in propensities toward serial
violence, the lower prevalence of Black males as serial killers in early time periods may be
attributable to greater neglect or indifference in cases of death or disappearances in Black
communities (see Fox et al. 2012). The higher rates of undetected serial predation among other
socially disadvantaged groups (like the homeless, street prostitutes, and drug users) may also be
attributable to similar mechanisms of neglect/indifference in which the police and other officials
historically have paid less attention when such persons died mysteriously or disappeared. In general,
the increased recognition over the last two decades of the possibility of serial killings in a wide
variety of settings (e.g., in low-income areas, within hospitals and nursing homes) has decreased this
type of reporting/recording bias in counts of serial killers. Because of the recording/reporting biases,
a reasonable conclusion is that the apparent racial differences between serial killers and other
murderers are less pronounced than suggested in previous studies.

Copyright @2024 162

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

in terms of their gender and racial composition, but a relatively higher

proportion of mass murders are 40 years old or older (see Table 20.4).

The prevalence of particular offender characteristics in multiple murders also

varies by the different types of serial killings and mass murders. For example,
lust- motivated serial killers are almost always men (Hickey 2010; Ressler et al
1988) and, when women are involved in these serial sexual homicides, they are
often “team killers” with male accomplices (e.g., the sex-motivated killings by
Douglas Clarke and Carol Bundy). As mentioned earlier, a higher proportion of
women than men are place-specific serial killers, and women account for the
majority of these killings when they involve medical workers (Hickey 2010).
Among the types of mass murders, males are the offenders in nearly all mass
school shootings in the U.S., ideological-driven killings, and workplace homicides.
However, when women are mass murderers, their victims are predominantly
family members.

Table 20.4: Demographic Profile of Serial Killers, Mass Murderers, and All Homicide
Offenders in the U.S.

Offender Serial Mass All

Attribute Killers Murderers Homicides
Sex:
Male 93 % 93 % 88 %
Female 7% 7% 12 %
Race:
White 65 % 60 % 47 %
Black 31 % 36 % 51 %
Other 4% 4% 2%
Age:
< 20 10 % 7% 10 %
20-29 42 % 31 % 35 %
30-39 32 % 34 % 29 %
40 + 16 % 28 % 26 %
Number of
Offenders 614 1,287 664,057
Source: Fox et al. (2012). Adapted from Tables 7.2 and 9.1

In terms of the offender’s psychological profile, existing research on serial killers

indicates that these offenders are not usually legally insane (only about 2-4% fit
this category) and they are not usually psychotic (Hickey 2010). However, when
compared to one-time violent offenders, serial murderers are far more likely to

Copyright @2024 163

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

exhibit the following personality disorders/traits: narcissism, sadism, paraphilic

tendencies, fantasy proneness and dissociative tendencies, and compulsiveness
(Kocsis 2006). More serious mental disorders and psychological dysfunction
appear to be more common among mass murders than serial killers (Hickey
2010).

Victim Attributes

Serial killers and mass murders are also distinct from other violent offenders in
terms of the social characteristics of their victims. Women, teenagers and
younger children, and strangers are far more likely to be victims of serial killers
than is true of other homicides. According to existing research (see Hickey
2010), the clear majority of serial killers always select only particular groups of
people as their victims (e.g., over half of them kill only strangers, exclusively men
or women but not both, and only within a particular age group [i.e., only
children, only teens, only adults, or only the elderly]). However, except for
ideology-driven killers who target victims with particular attributes (e.g., their
race/ethnicity, religion, nationality) and family slayers, other types of mass
murderers (e.g., school shooters, workplace killers) exhibit more diversity in their
victim selection.

Compared to most non-serial murderers who kill primary group members (e.g.,
family members, friends, co-workers) in arguments and disputes, serial killers
focus on victimizing those that are physically vulnerable (e.g., children, young
women, elderly women who are alone) or vulnerable/accessible because of their
dangerous lifestyles (e.g., hitchhikers, the homeless, prostitutes, drug users,
students). Victims with these personal attributes are also killed in dispute
situations by non-serial murderers, but the powerless and socially disadvantaged
are far more often the targets of sexual predators and other types of serial killers
(e.g., thrill-killers, mission-oriented killers).

Offense and Situational Attributes

The offense and situational attributes of mass and serial killing involve the
number of offenders, type of lethal weapon, aspects of the crime scene (e.g.,
evidence of sexual assault, separate locations in serial killings for killing/disposal
of the body, degree of bodily mutilation, the taking of souvenirs/trophies), the
temporal/spatial pattern of the offense, and post-mortem activity (e.g., body
postering, necrophilia, ritualized symbols on/near the body).

The presence or absence of many of these particular offense and situational

elements depends on the type of serial killer or mass murder. For example, male
serial killers are far more likely than female serial killers to victimize strangers,
use guns as the lethal weapon (i.e. females are more likely to use pills/poison),

Copyright @2024 164

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

and engage in sexual assaults of their victims (Hickey 2010). Similarly,

“organized” serial killers are more likely than “disorganized” ones to have
separate locations for killing the victim and disposing of their bodies (Ressler et
al 1988). The following statements summarize the typical offense attributes
associated with particular types of serial killers and mass murders.

Sexual Activity. The available data on known male serial killers suggests that the
majority of these offenders engage in some type of sexual acts against their
victims. This statement is based on the conclusion by Hickey (2010) that sex/lust
is the primary motive for serial killing and the widely noted presence of sexual
experimentation and sexual paraphilia before and after the victim’s death.
Violent sexual fantasy is a critical risk factor for many process-focused serial
sexual murders (Ressler et al 1988). However, sexual acts are largely absent in
cases of mission- and visionary-based serial killing. Rape and sexual mutilation
are often found in many collective acts of mass murder in the context of
genocides and civil strife, but sexual gratification is not the primary motivation
for these ideological-based killings.

Lethal Weapon. Firearms are the lethal weapons used by most male serial
killers. For example, Hickey (2010:219) reports that over half (56%) of the male
serial killers have used a gun as their lethal method at least “sometimes”,
followed closely by strangulation/suffocation (47%) and stabbing (45%). Deaths
involving firearms are far more prevalent among mission- and visionary-
motivated serial killers and among non-serial murderers who kill. Non-gun
methods (especially strangulation/suffocation) are more common among lust-
driven killers, and place-specific killers (e.g., those that kill in hospitals, nursing
homes). Nearly 80% of the female serial killers in the U.S. from 1821 to 2004
used poison as their lethal method always or at least sometimes (Hickey
2010:267).

Firearms are also the typical lethal weapons in mass murders. This is especially
true of mass murders in the context of workplace killings by former employees,
school violence, and family killings. However, the most lethal mass murder
incidents in American history involve the use of incendiary devices (e.g., Timothy
McVeigh’s bombing at the Oklahoma City Federal Building; the 9/11 hijacker
attacks). Ideology-based incidents of mass murder involving suicide bombings
and other explosives are far more common in other countries.

Lone Killers and Team Killers. Most serial killings involve situations of one
offender and one victim. Team killers involving more than one offender
represent about one-fourth of these murder situations (Hickey 2010). These
teams rarely involve more than two offenders. Multiple offenders are more
commonly found among some general murder situations, especially when they

Copyright @2024 165

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

involve juveniles and young adults as the perpetrators (Miethe and Regoeczi
2004).

Among mass murders, multiple offenders are most common in ideology-driven

killings by paramilitary forces, opposition leaders, and other type of vigilante
groups or “death squads”. Team killings by multiple offenders are extremely
rare in cases of family slayings and workplace killings.

Geographic/Physical Location. Most serial killings involve local or place-specific

killings. Hickey (2010) finds that only about one-third of serial killers are
“travelers” who kill in more than one state. The fact that many serial killers
develop routines/rituals for killing and humans are generally “creatures of habit”
helps explains the prevalence of local and place-specific killings. However, serial
killers who kill in multiple states were also historically far less likely to be
connected and/or detected by the police.

By definition, mass murderer kill in a specific place and types of mass murders
are often identified by reference to this location (e.g., workplace killings, school
shootings). Most mass murders in the U.S. involve cases of “family
annihilations” (Fox et 2012:181) and these killings often occur within or near the
victims’ home. The specific public places of employee slayings are wide and
varied (e.g., restaurants, financial businesses, recreational centers).

Drug and Alcohol Use. Drugs and alcohol are often mentioned as situational
factor in cases of serial killings, mass murders, and single-victim murders.
However, there are no sound estimates of the prevalence of either drug or
alcohol use/abuse across incidents of multiple killing. Drugs/alcohol use may
reduce social inhibitions about killing and serve as a suppressor for feelings of
anxiety/guilt for some serial killers and mass murders. Excessive alcohol/drug
use is likely to be uncommon during the actual killing situation because these
substances may impede the killer’s physical ability to complete their crimes.

Myths and Misconceptions about Serial and Mass Murders

Given that mass and serial killing is often portrayed in a highly sensationalized
manner, it is likely that many myths and misconceptions surround these crimes.
Several of these major myths about serial murder identified by Fox and Levin
(1999:166-174) are described below:

Myth #1: There is an epidemic of serial murder in the U.S.

Although several authors have provided frequency estimates of serial killing (see
Egger 2003; Hickey 2010; Quinet 2007), it is virtually impossible to measure its

Copyright @2024 166

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

prevalence with any degree of precision (Fox and Levin 1999:166). All crimes
(including serial killing) against the socially disadvantaged (e.g., the homeless,
prostitutes, runaway children, and drug uses) are often undetected and
underreported. It is also true historically that known deaths involving these
victims have been far less likely to be identified by law enforcement authorities
as cases of serial murder. Serial killings within heath care facilities are also source
of hidden victims from these crimes (Hickey 2010; Fox et al 2012).

Even after considering these various sources of undercounting, however, serial

killing remains a rare form of murder in this country. The best estimates of the
prevalence of these killings range from at most 10% and probably closer to 2% of
the annual U.S. homicides (see Fox and Levin 1999; Hickey 2010; Jenkins 1994).
Rather than reflecting a growth in the actual prevalence of this behavior, the
presumed "epidemic" of serial killing in the U.S. is more indicative of the media's
coverage of these incidents and the proliferation of serial killers in books,
televisions, and the movie industry. The media construction of a similar
"epidemic" of mass murder is also incongruent with the available empirical data
on its infrequent occurrence.

Myth #2: Serial Killers are unusual in appearance and lifestyle

Two images of serial killers derive from the mass media’s portrayal of them.
They are viewed as either (1) blood-thirsty, creatures of the night that kill
indiscriminately with massive carnage or (2) physically attractive, smooth talking,
brilliant-but-evil master criminals (Fox and Levin 1999:167). As is true of many
stereotypical images, serial killers do not fit either of these images particularly
well.

Based on the available evidence on known cases, the typical serial killer in the
U.S. is a white male in his late 20s or 30s (Fox et al. 2012; Hickey 2010). They
vary widely in their appearance and intelligence. Some are physically
unattractive by conventional standards of beauty and unappealing in basic
mannerisms and social graces (Fox and Levin 1999:167). Others are seen as
“charming” and attractive. Some serial killers are high school dropouts, some
have college degrees, and others are highly intelligent (e.g., Ted Kacyznski [The
Unabomber]; Ted Bundy).

If there is any single attribute that stands out about the appearance of serial
killers, it is that most of them are "extraordinarily ordinary" (Fox and Levin
1999:167). In fact, these authors contend that the secret to their success in
avoiding capture in many cases is that they do not stand out in a crowd or attract
negative attention to themselves. Many of them look and act much like "the boy
next door"--- they hold jobs, are married or involved in some other stable

Copyright @2024 167

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

relationship, and member of various local community groups (Fox and Levin
1999:167).

Myth #3: Serial Killers are all insane

What makes serial killers so scary to most people is that they generally kill not
for love, money, or revenge, but for the thrill of it (Fox and Levin 1999:168).
Many of them get intrinsic pleasure in the thrill, the sexual satisfaction, or the
dominance that they achieve from the process of killing. Their pursuit of
pleasure derives from sexual sadism (inflicting sexual pain on others) and
extensive fantasies of domination (see Ressler et al 1988; Prentky, Burgess, and
Rokous 1989). They rape, mutilate, sodomize, and degrade their victims to make
them suffer and they feel powerful, dominant, and superior from these actions
(Fox and Levin 1999:168).

There is no doubt that some form of mental illness is present in those who act on
sadistic dreams and fantasies to kill repeatedly. Diminished mental capacity can
also be assumed when people kill because some vision or voices presumably told
them to do it.5 However, contrary to these images of being “crazy” people, most
serial killers are not insane under most legal and medical classifications. They
are rarely found in courts to be “not guilty by reason of insanity” under the
various legal tests of it (e.g., the McNaughten’s “right-wrong” test; Durham’s
“product rule”, the “irresistible impulse” test, and the “substantial capacity”
test). Instead, they often know right from wrong, know exactly what they are
doing, and can control their desire to kill, but they choose not to (Fox and Levin
1999:168). These authors also note that most serial killers do not suffer from
hallucinations, a profound thought disorder, or major depression. However,
many serial killers do suffer from some personality disorders (e.g., anti-social,
narcissistic, obsessive-compulsive, schizoid/schizotypal) that are reflective of
such traits/attributes as an extreme disregard for others, lack of
empathy/remorse, preoccupation with order and control, and interpersonal
detachment.6 Other serial killers may have some initial concerns for their
5
For example, David Berkowitz (“Son of Sam”) said he killed people because he was ordered to do it
by his neighbor’s dog “Sam”. Similarly, Herbert Mullen killed 13 people in Santa Cruz, California over
a 4-month period because voices commanded him to kill to prevent earthquakes (Fox and Levin
1999:168).
6
The primary reason why serious psychopathology is not found among most serial killers involves the
limited social functioning associated with chronic mental illness. In particular, people who are deeply
disturbed/disoriented are generally not capable of the level of planning and organization necessary
for serial killers to conceal their identity from the authorities (Fox and Levin 1999:168). Under these
conditions, people with serious mental dysfunction may be murders but their potential “careers” as
serial killers are often preempted by either their own diminished mental capacity, civil actions (e.g.,
civil commitments in mental institutions), or criminal incarceration in prison.

Copyright @2024 168

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

potential victims, but they are able to neutralized or negate these feelings by
rationalizing their behavior (Fox and Levin 1999:168).

Myth #4: Serial Killers are inspired by pornography

The U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (1986) examined the

available evidence on the link between pornography and violent behavior. The
results of this report revealed a weak relationship between viewing pornography
and sex offending. However, it found a stronger relationship between violence-
oriented pornography and sex crimes. Experimental research reveals that
frequent and prolonged exposure to violent pornography tends to desensitize
"normal" men to the plight of victims of sexual abuse (Fox and Levin 1999:169;
Malamuth and Donnerstein 1984).

The available evidence on serial sexual predators indicates that many of these
offenders have a strong interest in pornography, especially sadistic magazines
and films (Ressler et al 1988). However, the claim that all or even most serial
killers are inspired by pornography is dubious for several reasons. First, many
serial killers don't kill for sexual reasons, so sexual sadism that may derive from
violent pornography is not a necessary condition for serial killing. Second, many
people who aren't serial killers view violent pornography and don't kill. In other
words, how can violent pornography be a primary cause of serial killing when the
same type of exposure to pornography does not cause other people to become
serial predators? Third, it takes more than violent pornography to create the
extreme and vicious personality that is found among many serial killers (Fox and
Levin 1999:169).

Myth #5: Serial Killers are products of bad childhoods

Many of the previous studies of serial killers have tried to identify the primary
risk factors for this behavior. This earlier literature identifies the following
childhood behaviors and conditions as major precursors or correlates of adult
violence: (1) bedwetting in adolescence, (2) fire setting, (3) cruelty to animals, (4)
childhood trauma, and (5) head trauma. However, the causal significance of
many of these risks factors, including the elements of Macdonald’s triad (i.e.,
enuresis [bed wetting], fire setting, and cruelty to animals), has been refuted in
subsequent research (Fox and Levin 1999).

Although these childhood factors are often mentioned in efforts to explain serial
killing, their importance in explaining the onset or persistence of serial killing is
unclear because the relative prevalence of these traits among “normal” children
is not well established. Even if serial killers are the product of bad childhoods, an
interesting developmental question is why does the typical male serial killer wait
until his late 20s or 30s before they commit their first murders?

Copyright @2024 169

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

Myth #6: Serial Killers really want to get caught

Contrary to the image of a guilt-ridden offender who wants to get caught, the
typical serial killer goes to great lengths to avoid detection by carefully
destroying crime scene evidence or disposing their victims' body in hard-to-find
dump sites (Fox and Levin 1999). Some serial killers travel great distances to
avoid detection. Many serial killers don't leave unmistakable and unique
"signatures" of their crimes because they want to confuse law enforcers. The
fact that many serial killers enjoy killing and may receive many instrinsic rewards
from their crimes is a major reason why the typical serial killer does not want to
get caught.

Explanations for Patterns of Mass and Serial Murder

Many existing criminological theories have been used in past research to explain
the etiology (i.e., causes) and epidemiology (i.e., distribution over social groups,
places and times) of mass and serial killing. The dominant theories within these
categories are described below.

Theoretical Explanations for Trends over Time and Place

Several studies have explored changes in the nature and relative prevalence of
mass and serial killing over time. These historical analyses identify the
characteristics of these offenders over time and offer explanations for temporal
changes in their offenses within the U.S. and abroad.

According to Leyton (1986), changes in the social profile of serial killers are
reflective of fundamental changes in the historical transformation from
preindustrial to modern societies. He argues that the preindustrial serial killer
was an aristocrat who preyed on his peasants and the early industrial serial killer
was a newly established member of the bourgeois who killed prostitutes,
homeless boys, housemaids and other members of the lower classes. In contrast,
Leyton (1986) contends that the modern serial killer is typically a failed bourgeois
male who attacks those of comparable ranks (like university students and
middle-class women).

These offenders are viewed as ambitious but untalented middle class men who
suffer strain and anomie because they unable to achieve the cultural goals of
material success. Wilson and Seaman (1985) express a similar view of modern
serial killers and mass murders, arguing that they are stressed and frustrated
people who have a growing resentment against society because it blocks their
opportunities to use their talents. This theme is also reflected in Fox et al’s

Copyright @2024 170

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

(2012) characterization of many modern mass murderers as a frustrated

workplace “avenger” who feels slighted or alienated from achieving their
personal and economic goals.

Jackson, van den Eshof, and Kleuver (1994) offer an alternative view of the
historical changes in the social profile of serial killers. Instead of reflecting
changes in class position, Jackson et al. (1994) apply Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
to understand the evolution of serial killers. From this perspective, serial killers
in the 18th and 19th century killed primarily for physiological needs (e.g., they
were hungry and poor). Over the 20th century, these needs fulfilled by killing
shifted to domestic security and then to concerns about love, sex, and enhancing
self-esteem.

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, efforts to conduct empirical analyses of the

relative prevalence of serial killing over time are limited by the available data.
Nonetheless, several authors (e.g., Holmes and Holmes 1994; Hickey 2010) have
compiled lists of U.S. serial killers from various records (e.g., newspaper
accounts, bibliographies, biographies). Both sources indicate that the estimated
number of serial killers in the U.S. has increased dramatically over time,
especially since the 1970s.

For example, Holmes and Holmes (1994) estimate an average of about 9 serial
killers per decade from 1900 to the 1970, but this number per decade increased
to 36 in the 1970s and nearly doubled to 64 U.S. serial killers in the 1980s.
Hickey (2010) also reports that the highest number of identified U.S. serial killers
occurred in the 1980s, with a substantial decline in these known cases from 1995
to 2004.

Several explanations have been offered for the dramatic rise in U.S. serial killers
in the 1980s and the subsequent decline in the number of known cases since the
1990s. Methodological explanations for the low incidents of serial killing in the
pre-1980 period involve measurement issues and the lower likelihood of
detecting and identifying cases of serial murder in earlier historical periods.

Substantive explanations for the rise in serial killing in the 1980s and early 1990s
include the following: (1) the greater cultural acceptance of violence and
desensitization to it due to the dramatic rise in incidents of violence and the
mass media portrayal of its extreme forms in television and movies, (2) growing
economic inequality and their resulting criminogenic effect of feelings of relative
deprivation, (3) the wider availability of violent pornography and other sado-
erotic materials that influences violent behavior, (4) patriarchy and the rising use
of serial killing as an extreme form of male domination of women, and (5) the
emergence of a new breed of predatory criminals (e.g., “thrill” killers and
psychopaths) who exhibit no remorse for their actions (see Hickey 2010).

Copyright @2024 171

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

The subsequent decline in serial killer in the post-1990 time period may be
attributable to changes in these risk factors from previous decades and the
greater awareness and multi-jurisdictional investigations of serial killing by law
enforcement that has led to earlier detection, apprehension, and incarceration
of these offenders.

Explanations of Individual’s Risks of Mass and Serial Killing

One of the most basic questions about mass murders and serial killers is “why do
they do it”? The answer to that basic question requires the examination of the
interplay between (1) the motives for the specific types of killing, (2) the risk
factors for this behavior, and (3) the application of etiological theories that show
how these risk factors are linked to the onset or persistence of their behavior.
The major etiological theories that best explain the behavior patterns of mass
and serial killers are described below.

1. Biological Theories

Biological theories of mass and serial killing focus on the interrelationship

between brain function, personality traits, and human behavior. From a
biological perspective, genetic defects in chemical imbalances (e.g., levels of
serotonin, dopamine, and/or testosterone) are linked to violent behavior
because of their influence on impulsivity and self-control. Other organic brain
malfunctions may lead to maturational delays and various manifestations of
psychopathology associated with it (e.g., sexual immaturity, emotional
impotency, erratic bursts of temper, and inability to maintain interpersonal
relationships). One explanation for why most serial killers begin their deadly
careers in their mid to late 20s and 30s involves maturational delays that prevent
them from handling emotional problems in more socially acceptable ways.

Although a variety of other biological risk factors have been identified in

previous research (e.g., head trauma), differences in biological or bio-chemical
conditions do not provide an adequate explanation for specific acts of mass
murder, the onset of serial killing, or the episodal nature of their killing behavior
over time. Various psychological and social psychological theories are better
able to account for the behavior of these multiple murders over time and
situational contexts.

2. Psychological Theories

Copyright @2024 172

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

The most popular image of mass and serial killers is that they are persons who
suffer from a mental illness or disease. These mental disorders are identified in
diagnostic manuals (like the DSM-IV) to assist clinicians in diagnosing, treating,
and studying mental disorders. They include major mental conditions (like
psychoses and neuroses) and a host of personality disorders (e.g., paranoia,
borderline, obsessive-compulsive, anti-social, narcissism). A summary of the
various types of psychological traits/conditions that have been identified in the
psychological literature on mass murders and serial killers are described below.

Psychosis. Some serial killers are clearly psychotic but most are not. Joseph
Kallinger was psychotic, suffering from serious delusions and hallucinations. He
killed his own son and other people, claiming that a large floating head with
tentacles named "Charlie" instructed him to kill millions of people and cut off
their genitals. However, most serial killers (like Ted Bundy, Douglas Clark, John
Gacy) are psychologically impaired because they enjoy killing people but they are
not necessarily psychotic.

Criminal Psychopaths. Another common image of multiple murders is that they

are criminal psychopaths who are maladjusted, callous individuals that show
little remorse for their illegal behavior. According to Hickey (2010:75),
psychopaths want immediate gratification, lack discretion, are exceptional
manipulators, and fail to learn from their mistakes. They also have these
personality traits: aggressive, insensitive, hedonistic, intelligent, rational, calm,
unreliable, insincere, without shame or remorse, have poor judgment, without
capacity to love, unemotional, poor insight, indifferent to the trust or kindness of
others, over reactive to alcohol, suicidal, impersonal sex life, and lacking in long-
term goals.

Hare’s (1991) revised checklist for psychopathy includes the following factors: (1)
Factor 1 (glibness/ superficial charm, narcissism, pathological lying, conning or
manipulative behavior, lack of remorse or guilt, shallow affect, callousness or
lack of empathy, and failure to accept responsibility); (2) Factor 2 (needs
stimulation, parasitic lifestyle, poor behavioral controls, early behavioral
problems, lack realistic long-term goals, impulsivity, irresponsibility, and juvenile
delinquency; (3) Factor 3 includes promiscous sex behavior, many short-term
marital relationships, and criminal versatility. Most psychopaths are not violent
but they are more dangerous than most other people. All psychopaths want
control over their environment and it is this quest that makes them dangerous
(Hickey 2010). They become violent when this control is challenged.

Although many serial killers have some of the traits associated with psychopathy,
this diagnostic category is not very useful for understanding the etiology of serial
killing for several reasons. First, the term psychopath may describe the serial
killer's behavior, but it doesn't explain the psychological processes that lead

Copyright @2024 173

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

serial killers to "kill for pleasure". Second, some serial killers show remorse and
have some capacity to experience guilt. Third, being a psychopath doesn't
explain why particular types of targets are selected and why they are selected at
particular times and at particular places. The “cooling off” period that is part of
the definitional property of serial killing is also not explainable by references to
their psychopathy.

Inner Conflicts. Psychological theories often view violent offenders as people

who are intensely tormented by various types of inner conflicts. Specific
indicators of this inner conflict include the following: helplessness, impotence,
nagging revenge carried over from early childhood, irrational hatred of others,
suspiciousness, hypersensitivity to injustices or rejection, self-centeredness,
inability to withstand frustration, overpowered by frequent uncontrollable
emotional outbursts (Hickey 2005). The defense mechanisms used by persons to
reduce anxiety states include denial, repression (unconscious exclusion of
anxiety producing materials), suppression (conscious exclusion), projection
(initial repression and attachment of the material to others), displacement
(venting unacceptable impulses toward a substitute target), and sublimation
(directing unacceptable impulses into socially acceptable channels). Each
mechanism is used at one time or another by various serial killers (Hickey
2005:77).

3. Social Process Theories

These general theories of criminal behavior focus on the interaction between the
individual and his/her environment. They examine how people learn criminal
behavior, neutralize the stigma of engaging in criminal behavior to rationalize
their conduct, and respond to the weakening of bonds to traditional society.
Several of the most useful social process theories for explaining the episodal
nature of mass murder and serial killings are described below.

Neutralization Theory. Under Sykes and Matza’s neutralization theory (1957),

humans learn a variety of cognitive techniques to neutralize the stigma of
engaging in deviant/criminal behavior. These cognitive neutralizations make it
possible for people to commit criminal acts that they may otherwise view as
gross and disgusting.

When applied to mass and serial killers, this theory contends that these
offenders are able to drift across the line of conventional and criminal behavior
by using one of the following rationalizations: (1) Denial of Injury (e.g., beliefs
like “didn't hurt anyone--they were going to die anyway”), (2) Denial of Victim
(e.g., “the victim had it coming, she/he provoked it”), (3) Denial of Responsibility
(e.g., “it was an accident, not intentional”), (4) Condemnation of Condemners

Copyright @2024 174

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

(e.g., “everyone else is doing it”), and (5) Appeal to Higher Authority (e.g., “I’m
doing it for someone else, on a mission”).

Case studies of mass murders and serial killers often show evidence to support
the basic premises of neutralization theory. For example, serial killers drift (like
all criminals) back/forth between illegal and conventional behavior. Many serial
killers are fully employed, married with families, active in civic organizations,
educated, and generally function within mainstream society" (Hickey 2005). In
terms of specific neutralizations, mission-oriented killers justify their actions by
several cognitive rationalizations (i.e., “denial of injury”, “denial of victim”
and/or “plea to a higher authority”). Other serial killers (e.g., power/control,
thrill killers) also employ the denial of the victim when they dehumanize their
victims before taking their lives (Hickey 2010:92).

As an explanation for the behavior of mass and serial killers, the major limitation
of neutralization theory involves the question of the temporal ordering. In
particular, the theory requires that the neutralizations precede in time the
offender’s lethal actions---that is, these neutralizations must be the precipitating
and proximate cause that leads the individual to drift into killing. However,
there is no compelling empirical evidence to support this causal chain. Instead,
for most mass and serial killers, these neutralizations serve only as an excuse or
justification for their behavior only after they kill or are caught (Hickey 2010).

Social Bond Theory. As developed by Hirschi (1969), social bond theory assumes
that human behavior is held in check by different types of social bonds that
inhibit our natural tendency to engage in criminal behavior. When these social
bonds (i.e., attachment, commitment, involvement, belief) to conventional
society are weakened, the individual is more prone to engage in various types of
illegal behavior.

As an explanation for the behavior of mass murderers and serial killers, social
bond theory places causal importance on specific actions that reduce these
external bonds to society. For example, the acts of many mass murderers
(especially workplace killings, school shootings, and family slayings) often exhibit
some planning and calculation, but they are often precipitated by a particular
action (e.g., firing, demotion, expulsion, infidelity, divorce) that weakens their
bonds to conventional behavior.

Similarly, the life histories of many serial killers often reveal a significant act or
event that is instrumental in the development of their criminal career. When
coupled with the principles of internal self controls developed by Gottfredson
and Hirschi (1990), these two types of social control theories offer a good
explanation for the specific demographic correlates of multiple homicides and
their occurrence at particular times and places.

Copyright @2024 175

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

Addiction Theory of Sexual Compulsivity. Sexual motivations are an important

causal factor in understanding the behavior of many male serial killers. When
these motivations are strong, efforts to satisfy this overwhelming and insatiable
sexual desire may compel the individual to behavior in irrational and unthinkable
ways. Similar to drug/alcohol addiction, an addiction model of sexual
compulsion seems to explain the behavioral sequences of many sexual predators
and serial killers. Such an addiction theory of sexual compulsion has been
developed (Carnes 1992) and is summarized in Table 20.5.

Although this addiction model may explain the typical processes underlying
sexual predation, it is important to emphasize that most serial killers are not
motivated by sexual fantasies or compulsivity. However, this model illustrates
how particular behavioral patterns of sexual predators may persist over time and
become resistant to internal and external efforts to control them.

Table 20.5: An Addiction Theory of Serial Sexual Murder

This theoretical model views sexual activity as a means of inducing a euphoric

state of mind which substitutes an emotional high for feelings of psychological
pain. Ever increasing fantasy and acting out are necessary to maintain and avoid
despair and depression. The stages or cycles that underlie this model of sexual
addiction include the following:

(1) Pre-occupation... particular triggers or arousal cues (like paraphilias) result in

a trance-like state of arousal. This initial stage is the beginning of an over-
whelming and time-consuming obsession to satisfy the arousal state. Fantasy
of a violent and sexual nature is a critical predisposing factor in this pre-
occupation phase.

(2) Ritualization... involves regularly following the same methods of preparing

for sexual activity.. Rituals include "cruising" particular areas such as bars,
single spots, city parks, lakes, and public restrooms.

(3) Sexual compulsivity-- this is the sexual acting out or out of control behavior.
Forms of acting out include masturbation until injury, multiple anonymous
sexual contacts, and indiscriminate sexual activity and targets.

(4) Shame and despair… the sex addict experiences pleasure during the pre-
occupation and ritualization stages and temporary moments of euphoria
during sexual release of the compulsivity stage. However, major voids,
shame, and despair often follow. They try to curb their behavior but

Copyright @2024 176

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

something triggers their preoccupation again. The vicious cycle starts again.
Source: Carnes (1992)

The Criminal Justice Response to Mass and Serial Killers

Serial killings have posed a special problem for law enforcement across
jurisdictions and over time. Throughout much of the 20th century, serial killings
were hard to distinguish from other murders and the serial killer was difficult to
identify and apprehend. Up until the mid 1990s, police departments were
generally not trained or equipped to either identify or apprehend serial killers.

The nature of the crimes also adds to the difficulty in catching serial killers. The
particular problems with apprehending serial killers compared to other murders
include (1) serial killers are sometimes highly mobile “travelers” across many
jurisdictions, (2) they select strangers as their victims, (3) they are careful to
minimize evidence at the crime scene, (4) a long period of time may pass
between their offenses, and (5) false confessions and copycat murders may
undermine ongoing police investigations and throw them off track. In contrast,
the apprehension of mass murders has been less problematic over time because
the nature of their crimes (e.g., the offender is more likely to be known to the
victims and survivors, they are more apt to be apprehended at the crime scene
or killed at this location, the offender is often less concerned about getting
caught).

Factors Inhibiting the Identification and Solvability of Serial Killings

As just mentioned, serial killers are often more difficult to apprehend than other
violent offenders because of the nature of their crimes. However, economic and
political issues also affect their solvability. The special problems that influence
the criminal investigation and apprehension of serial killers are summarized
below (see also Egger 2002; Glover and Witham 1989; Hickey 2005).

Determining that a Case is a Serial Murder. It is often difficult to determine

whether a particular killing is the result of a serial killers when (1) the offender is
geographically transient and (2) the offender uses multiple/ diverse methods
(e.g., sometimes knives, sometimes guns) and selects diverse victims (e.g.,
sometimes children, sometimes adults, sometimes men, sometimes women,
some white, some black). When there is no unique signature that is a common
feature of their crimes, it will also be more difficult to tie them together as a
series.

Copyright @2024 177

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

Linkage Blindness and Turf Battles. Historically, various law enforcement

agencies have failed to fully cooperate and share information in serial killing
cases because of the political capital that accrues when one’s particular agency is
considered the lead agency in catching these “super predators” (Egger 1984,
2002). Turf battles become a growing problem in high-profile cases that may
exacerbate the existing friction between state/local police and federal officials
(especially the FBI).

Dedication of the Agency's Resources. Serial killing investigations are often an

expensive venture, involving task forces, communication expenses, increased
manpower allocations, and administrative and secretarial supplies and
resources. The Green River Task Force, for example, involved nearly 100
professional investigators and thousands of pages of materials weekly. It
identified nearly 20,000 suspects and cost the taxpayers over $20 million (Hickey
2010:363).

Gary Ridgway was finally linked to these crimes through DNA evidence. Similarly,
the Unabomber case (Ted Kaczynski) spanned 20 years and 3 task forces, costing
between $50 and $60 million (Hickey 2010). Kacyznski was ultimately caught
through information provided by his brother. When these political and
economic resources are lacking, serial killers are less likely to be apprehending.

National Apprehension Programs and Data Bases

In the aftermath of the serial killing “epidemic” in the early 1980s, the U.S.
Department of Justice in 1984 established the National Center for the Analysis of
Violent Crime. This center provides a clearinghouse and resource base for law
enforcement agencies involved in "unusual, bizarre, and/or vicious or repetitive
violent crimes". The core element of this program was the Violent Criminal
Apprehension Program (VICAP).

VICAP served as a national clearinghouse for reports involving solved or unsolved

homicides, abductions, missing persons where violence is expected, and
unidentified dead bodies involving homicide (Hickey 2010). VICAP compiled
criminal profiles in a variety of cases, including those involving post mortem
mutilations, torture, child molestations/abductions, bank robberies, serial arson,
lust murders, and serial murders. However, the operation of VICAP was short-
lived and no longer exists for a variety of reasons (e.g., limited cooperation from
other agencies, budgetary cuts).

Efforts to increase the apprehension and conviction of serial killers have

continued in recent years through a variety of national programs (e.g., The
National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime [NCAVC]) and databases for
forensic evidence (e.g., Combined DNA Index System [CODIS]; Automated

Copyright @2024 178

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

Fingerprint Identification Systems [AFIS]). Various types of criminal profiling

have also proliferated over the past several decades, including profiling based on
the offender and his/her psychological assessment, victim attributes, crime
scene characteristics, and the geographical patterns associated with these
crimes (see Hickey 2010).

Although some successful investigations have occurred from the use of these
methods, the overall effectiveness of these investigative tools have not been
clearly demonstrated. Unfortunately, the ability to quickly apprehend serial
killers who are geographically mobile, use a variety of lethal methods, and prey
on diverse groups of victims remains a major challenge for law enforcement
even in the 21st century.

The Adjudication and Disposition of Cases of Serial and Mass Murder

Comprehensive data on the adjudication and disposition of cases of serial killers

and mass murders is limited. The most complete study of the adjudication of
serial killings involves Hickey’s (2010) compilation of known serial killers from
1800 to 2004. No single source covers the disposition of mass murder cases
within the criminal justice system.

According to Hickey (2010), the most common disposition for serial killers is a
prison sentence. A prison sentence (including life sentences) was the disposition
for about two-thirds of the female serial killers and a substantial minority (43%)
of the male serial killers. Death sentences were the next most prevalent
disposition, accounting for a higher proportion among male serial killers (29%)
than female offenders (19%). Confinement in a psychiatric hospital, presumably
due to a legal verdict of insanity, was rarely the sentence for both male (3%) and
female (5%) serial killers (Hickey 2010).

Among mass murders, several observations can be made from the available case
studies. First, cases of murder-suicide appear to be more common in mass
murders than serial killers. This is especially true of many ideology-driven mass
killings (e.g., suicide bombers, assassins), but cases of murder-suicide are also
widely reported in mass family slayings and school shootings. Second, similar to
serial killers, most mass murders adjudicated in the criminal justice system are
probably given a prison sentence. Third, both death sentences and insanity
verdicts appear to be rare in mass murder cases, but questions of mental illness
and insanity seem to be more prevalent in cases of mass murder than serial
killing.

Summary and Conclusions

Copyright @2024 179

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

Mass murders and serial killers represent some of the most despicable criminals
in any society. They often kill for intrinsic reasons of sexual lust, thrill,
power/control, and to avenge a perceived wrong. Although these offenses
receive extensive media coverage, both mass murder and serial killing are
relatively uncommon forms of homicide in the U.S. and elsewhere. This is true
even when estimates of the large number of hidden victims of serial killers are
considered.

Major differences exist in the motivations and characteristics underlying

different types of mass murders and serial killers. Ideology-based mass murders
kill for different reasons and in different ways than mass murders who kill in the
workplace or family contexts. Male and female serial killers also vary widely in
their relative prevalence, the underlying motivations, victim attributes, the
location of the crimes, and their choice of lethal methods.

Serial killers provide special problems in their apprehension and solvability by

law enforcement agencies because of the nature of their crimes and the
cooperation among these agencies. The ability to quickly apprehend serial killers
who are geographically mobile, use a variety of lethal methods, and prey on
diverse groups of victims remains a major challenge for law enforcement even in
the 21st century. Most apprehended serial killers are given prisons sentences
upon conviction. Relatively few of these offenders are given the death penalty or
considered legally insane.

Copyright @2024 180

Criminology Chapter 20: Mass Murder and Serial Killing

Application Questions:

1. Explain why it is difficult to get an accurate measure of the extent of

mass and serial killings in the U.S. and other countries.

2. What are the major myths about serial killers and mass murders?

3. How well do traditional theories of criminal behavior (e.g., biological,

psychological, social process theories) explain the causes and
distribution of mass murder and serial killing? What are the
strengths and limitations of these particular theories in explaining
this criminal behavior?

Copyright @2024 181

Criminology Chapter 21: Rape and Other Sex Offenses

Chapter 21:
Rape and Other Sex Offenses

Objectives:

• Know why the prevalence of different types of sexual assaults is grossly

underestimated in official crime data and most victimization surveys.

• Identify the primary characteristics and relative prevalence of different

types of rapists and other sex offenders.

• Know the research findings about the prior arrest histories of sex
offenders and their patterns of specialization, escalation, and desistance.

• Identify the various types of sexual paraphilias found among different

types of sex offenders.

• Identify the strengths and limitations of current policies for sex offending
prevention and intervention.

Rape and other sexual assaults represent some of the most serious and heinous
crimes in any society. A variety of conduct is covered within the generic category
of “sex offenses”. For example, the FBI has long defined forcible rape as “sexual
intercourse or attempted sexual intercourse with a female against her will, by
force or threat of force”. Since 2012, however, the FBI now includes both men
and women as victims and offenders in rape cases. Most states use the term
sexual assaults to refer to any acts of forced sexual intercourse or contact
regardless of the gender of the victim.

Other elements of the criminal act are also used to distinguish between different
types of sex offenses. For example, “hands off” sex offenses involve acts like
exhibitionism (i.e., showing private parts), voyeurism (i.e., watching people
usually with some implied level of sexual intent) and the possession/sale of

Copyright @2024 182

Criminology Chapter 21: Rape and Other Sex Offenses

pornography. In contrast, “hands on” sex offenses involve physical contact with
the victim and include forcible rapes, sexual assaults, acts of lewd and lascivious
conduct, and prostitution. The age of the victim and his/her relationship to the
offender are other basis for differential classifications. Child molesters,
pedophiliac, and statutory rapists are typically covered in criminal statutes
regarding sexual assaults of a minor, whereas the legal categories of
intrafamilial sexual assaults are used to represent acts of incest and marital
rape.

1. The Prevalence/Distribution of Sexual Assault

As a group of offenses, accurate data on the prevalence and nature of sexual

assaults is virtually non-existent. There are several basic reasons why these
crimes are so poorly represented in official crime data (UCR data) and
victimization surveys (NCVS):

• Acts of sexual predation are some of the most heinous offenses in any
society. Because of the sexual nature of the crimes, many of these victims
are unwilling to tell family members and close friends about their sexual
abuse. They are even less willing to tell police officers, school counselors,
and social service agencies about their victimization.

• Most sexual assault victims do not report these crimes to the police for
several reasons, including (1) a feeling that they won’t be believed and
that nothing will be done, (2) a fear of retaliation from the offender, (3)
feelings of guilt and shame from being sexually molested, and (4) a fear
that others will unfairly judge them as being somehow blameworthy for
their own victimization by their provocative actions, style of dress, and/or
previous relationship with the offender.

• Many sex offenses involve acts of intrafamilial sexual assaults (e.g.,

incest, sexual abuse by siblings and step-fathers; marital rape;
lewd/lascivious conduct involving other relatives). Because these types
of sexual offenses have serious implications for others within the
family, intrafamilial sexual assaults are especially prone to non-reporting.

• National police data (UCR) only provide estimates the number of

“known” forcible rapes in their annual counts of Index Crimes. However,
there are three fundamental problems with prevalence estimates that
derive from UCR data: (1) only a very small fraction of all forcible rapes
that occur are known to the police, (2) forcible rapes involving male
victims are not included in these UCR estimates (i.e., for some unknown
reason, the FBI still restricts rape to female victims), and (3) estimates of
the number of other types of sex offenses (e.g., lewd conduct,

Copyright @2024 183

Criminology Chapter 21: Rape and Other Sex Offenses

exhibitionism, prostitution, pornography) are not provided in these

annual reports of known offenses.

• Far less than half (33%) of the forcible rapes that are known to the police
are cleared by an arrest (UCR 2019). Given this clearance rate and the
enormous numbers of rapes that are not reported to the police, any
demographic profile of arrestees for rape or other sex offenses that
derives from police data is not likely to be an accurate representation of
the actual profile of most sex offenders.

• As an alternative measure of the prevalence of sexual assaults in the U.S.,

the national criminal victimization surveys (NCVS) are seriously plagued
by numerous problems that limit their value for estimating national
rates. For primarily political reasons (e.g., a feeling that the federal
government should not fund surveys that ask its citizens about their
victimization experiences from sexual assault), NCVS surveys could not
ask questions directly about sex offenses until the mid 1990s--- before
this time, NCVS interviews could only ask “is there any other type of
crime that you’ve experienced over this time period?” and the reply
“rape or sex offense” would be recorded and tallied. Even with the
revised NCVS screening questions that permit asking respondents about
sex offenses, it is seriously doubtful that NCVS data provides anything
more than extremely gross estimates of this type of victimization.

Due to these serious limitations of both police and victimization data, any
inferences about the actual prevalence and nature of sex offenses that derive
from these data should be viewed with a great deal of caution. Unfortunately,
UCR and NCVS data on sex offenses (especially forcible rape) provide the best
available national estimates on these crimes over time and space. General
trends for these reported sex offenses are summarized below.

U.S. Rape Rate per 100,0000 (UCR 1960-2019)

0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Copyright @2024 184

Criminology Chapter 21: Rape and Other Sex Offenses

Similar to other violent crimes, UCR-based rape offense rates increased in the
1970s until the early 1980s, rose again from 1985 to 1992, and have generally
decreased since the early 1990s. The increased number of rapes and rape rate in
the 2013-2019 period reflects in part a change in the FBI’s definition of rape to
include both male and female victims and offenders.

NCVS-based rape victimization rates reveal a somewhat similar pattern over the
1993-2019 time period. These victimization rates exhibited a general downward
trajectory across this time period, with some fluctuations. Unfortunately,
because of the limitations of both UCR and NCVS data, it is unclear whether this
apparent decrease in rape offenses and victimizations over the last three
decades represents a real change in sexual assault behavior or simply a reflection
of changes in the reporting and/or recording of these offenses by law
enforcement agencies and crime victims.

Rape Victimization Rates (NCVS 1993-2019)

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017

Rape offense rates based on police data exhibit wide differences by region of the
country, population size, and other socio-economic characteristics of
geographical areas (Miethe et al. 2006:42). For example, rape rates are highest
in the Midwest, Western, and Southern regions of the country and considerably
lower in the Northeast (UCR 2019). These rates are also higher in cities than
suburban and rural areas. Consistent with social disorganization theory and the
principles underlying the concentric zone theory of urban places, rape rates are
also substantially higher in cities and neighborhoods characterized by a higher
density of multi-unit dwellings, renter-occupied housing, economic disadvantage
(e.g., higher unemployment, lower family income), ethnic diversity, population
mobility, and single-parent households (see Miethe et al 2006: 42).

Copyright @2024 185

Criminology Chapter 21: Rape and Other Sex Offenses

Compared to the national rate of 42.6 per 100,000, the states with the highest
rape rates in 2019 are ranked in the following way: (1) Alaska (149 per 100,000,
(2) Arkansas (77 per 100,000), (3) South Dakota (73 per 100,000, (4) Michigan
(72 per 100,000), and (5) Nevada (70 per 100,000).

Watch Video Crim32:

International Comparisons

2. Offender Characteristics

Persons arrested for sex offenses are overrepresented by males, the young, and
African American (UCR 2019). These group differences vary somewhat by type
of sex offense. Previous research also indicates that there is also wide variability
in the nature and prevalence of the criminal careers of sex offenders (i.e.,
patterns of specialization, escalation, and/or persistence).

Based on police data (UCR 2019), males account for about 97% of the persons
arrested for forcible rape, and they represent over 90% of the persons arrested
for other sex offenses such as indecent exposure, sodomy against nature, incest,
adultery, and sexual seduction. Prostitution is the only sex-related offense in
which male arrestees are underrepresented---males are the arrestees in only
about one-third (37%) of these crimes. Data from victimization surveys also
confirm the high prevalence of males as sex offenders. Explanations for why
males may be more predisposed to sexual predation the females include the
following:

• Issues of power and control are often the underlying motivation for sex
offenses. Given this motivation, some males may use rape and other sex
offenses as a means of displaying their power/control over another
person. This is especially true for males who are emotional weak,
immature, and suffer from sexual insecurities.

• Young boys in patriarchal societies are socialized to be aggressive, tough,

and dominating. Within male-dominated cultures, young males are often
led to believe that woman want to be submissive and/or controlled by

Copyright @2024 186

Criminology Chapter 21: Rape and Other Sex Offenses

men and that sexually coercive behavior against them is somehow

justified in a particular context.

• Higher levels of testosterone in males provide the biological fuel for their
aggression. The likelihood of sexual aggression is enhanced for young
males because of their higher impulsivity and lower levels of self-control
than other social groups (e.g., woman and older males).

A large proportion (39%) of persons arrested for forcible rape are under 25 years
old and about 17% are under 18 (UCR 2019). About one-fourth (22%) of
arrestees for this crime are between 18 and 24. Nearly 1,300 arrestees for rape
in 2019 were 14 years old or younger. Previous research also indicates that the
typical age distribution for sex offenders varies by the type of crime. For
example, offenders involved in intrafamilial sexual assaults (e.g., incest),
exhibitionists, voyeurs (“peepers”), and child molesters are often older than
rapists (Miethe et al. 2006: 44).

Over two-thirds (70%) of arrested rapists are White and less than one-third
(27%) are Black (UCR 2019). This racial distribution has remained relatively
stable over time. Given that African Americans represent about 12% of the
current U.S. population, this racial group is over-represented among persons
arrested for forcible rape.

a. Types of Sex Offenders

Clinical studies have revealed some evidence of relatively distinct personality

profiles among male rapists and other sex offenders. In particular, most of these
men are emotionally weak and insecure individuals who want to possess,
control, and dominate women. The results of Nicholas Groth’s study of 500
convicted rapists indicate that all of these men had either temporary or chronic
symptoms of psychological dysfunction. Groth’s research identified three distinct
types of rapists (Groth and Birnbaum 1979):

• Anger Rapists. For these offenders, sex is a means of expressing and

discharging pent-up anger. The offender uses excessive brutality in the
rape because his aim is to hurt the victim. The sexual act for these rapists
is not a primary motivation and is more representative of an afterthought
of one’s general aggression. These rapists’ behavior is similar to the idea
of displaced aggression. From the victim’s perspective, this type of rape
is usually less psychologically traumatizing because the brutality of the
offense often elicits greater sympathy from others and is less likely to
invoke victim blaming. About 40% of the rapists in Groth’s sample were
considered anger rapists.

Copyright @2024 187

Criminology Chapter 21: Rape and Other Sex Offenses

• Power Rapists. The rapists in these offenses is motivated by issues of

power and control. He wants to possess/control the victim and attempts
to accomplish this goal through the sexual conquest. These rapists use
only enough force necessary to achieve this goal. They want to “be in
control” and use these sexual assaults to reaffirm their perceived
masculinity. So-called “date rape” and other sexual assaults among
acquaintances are common situations for power/control rape. The
victims of these crimes often suffer serious psychological harm beyond
the rape itself because the lack of excessive force in these situations
contributes to feelings that the victim could have done sometime to
prevent the sexual assault. Groth found that over half (55%) of the rapists
in his study fit this profile of power/control rapists.

• Sadistic Rapists. These offenders are sexual sadists who achieve

pleasure from inflicting serious injury on the victim. Binding, gagging,
torture, and sexual enslavement of their victims are common behavioral
patterns for these offenders. Given the psychological and physical torture
inflicted by their captor, the victims of sadistic rapists suffer chronic
injuries from these crimes and often require extensive counseling and
other types of therapy. While often portrayed as the typical rapists in
television drama and movies, sadistic rapists represent only a small
minority (5%) of sex offenders.

Other typologies of sex offenders have been developed on the basis of the age of
the victim, the victim-offender relationship, and specific offense
characteristics. Some of these classifications of sex offenders and their unique
“signatures” (i.e., the particular offender/victim/offense attributes that
distinguish them from other sex offenders) are summarized below:

• Child Molesters. Pedophiles have a sexual preference for children and

can be classified as situational or preferential child molesters (Lanning
2001). Situational molesters do not exhibit a particular sexual preference
for children but are often opportunists who engage in sex with children
for varied and complex reasons (e.g., for dominance/control, displaced
aggression, lust, etc.). Preferential Molesters, in contrast, have a clear
sexual preference for children. These pedophiles often have extensive
collections of child-oriented pornography.

Research suggests that most pedophiles are men, typically

married, and they often have their own children. Although many
of their victims are young boys, they do not usually have a
homosexual identity. Child molesters exist in all socio-economic
(e.g., poor and rich), occupational (e.g., professionals and
unskilled workers), racial (e.g., black and white), and age (e.g.,

Copyright @2024 188

Criminology Chapter 21: Rape and Other Sex Offenses

teens and senior citizens) groupings (Lanning 2001; Miethe et al

2006: 52)

Primary personality characteristics of child molesters include an

inability to establish genuine interpersonal relationships, low self-
esteem, and feelings of isolation and helplessness (Groth
1978). Poor impulse control is also a crucial factor underlying a
pedophile’s behavior.

Contrary to common stereotypes about “stranger danger”, the

vast majority of child molesters are family acquaintances, family
members, or distant relatives of the victim. Many of them use
this status as a friend or family member to lure and entice their
victims. Advice like “don’t talk with strangers” doesn’t protect
children from the typical child molester.

Other types of child molesters are the “saint” (i.e., persons who
serve the wider community and are respected in their community
[e.g., priests, teachers, coaches, doctors] and pederasts (i.e.,
pedophiles who engage in exclusively man-boy
relationships). Because they violate a sacred trust bestowed on
them for protecting of children, there is especially strong public
outrage at pedophilic priests and other saint-type molesters
(Shook 1998; Miethe et al 2006: 53).

Among pederasts, Rossman (1980) suggests that there are also

several different types of molesters, including the following: (1)
the temporary or “substitute” type who turns to molesting boys
for sexual excitement and gratification due to the absence of a
female sexual partner, (2) the criminal or “exploitative” pederast
who preys on young boys and has a long history of predatory acts,
(3) the promiscuous or “cruiser” type who often uses the services
of child prostitutes that are picked up from the street, (4) the
careful pederast who employs a “middle man” to arrange sexual
meetings with young boys to minimize their chances of being
arrested, and (5) the responsible pederast who is so fearful of
being apprehended that he avoids all physical contact with boys---
instead, he uses massive collections of child pornography to
enhance his sexual fantasies.

• Adolescent Sex Offenders. Sexual abuses by adolescent boys often are

attacks on younger children, especially younger siblings and
acquaintances. Some of the social background characteristics of these
young sex offenders include (1) abusive family relationships and prior

Copyright @2024 189

Criminology Chapter 21: Rape and Other Sex Offenses

sexual abuse, (2) growing up in a severely dysfunctional family

environment (e.g., alcohol abuse, parental suicide, and parental sexual
abuse), and (3) low social competence and deficiencies in social skills as
indicated by having no friends, a lack of motivation, and an
underachiever attitude (Fehrenbach et al 1986; Hsu and Starzynsi 1990;
Miethe et al 2006: 53). Other risk factors for these sex offenders include
(1) the withholding of parental nurturing and intimacy from young boys
to foster “tough” masculinity, (2) the failure to encourage boys to express
their empathy in interacting with young children, (3) the development of
sexist and negative attitudes toward women, (4) the reinforcement of
dangerous myths regarding women’s attitudes toward coerced sex, and
(5) the lack of constructive developmental experiences in adolescence
(see Finkelhor 1986). Most of these acts of adolescent sex offenders are
beyond the limits of normal sexual experimentation among young
people. Instead, these sex offenders are often using sexual violence as a
form of displaced aggression as a response to their own abused lives and
limited social competence to deal with these problems in constructive
ways.

• Date/Acquaintance Rape. Sexual assaults among acquaintances and

within dating relationships are common situational contexts for these
crimes. Many college women report being involved in a sexually coercive
situation and most of these cases occurred within a dating
context. Research on “date rape” reveals that most of these rapes occur
on the first date and less than 1/10th of them are reported to the
police. Some of the particular situational and predisposing factors for
these sexual assaults include (1) dominating and controlling behavior by
males, (2) acceptance of traditional gender roles, (3) miscommunication
regarding sex, and (4) heavy alcohol and drug use (Lundberg-Love and
Geffner 1989; Muehlenhard and Linton 1987; Miethe et al 2006: 54).

• Incest. Incest refers to inappropriate sexual activity within the family

that is illegal by law or forbidden by custom. It is a type of intrafamilial
sexual assault and may involve a number of family relationships (e.g.,
father/daughter, mother/son, father/son, mother/daughter,
siblings). Distant relatives (e.g., first cousins, step-fathers) are not
typically included as incest cases. The majority of incest cases involve
sexual offenses by fathers against their daughters.

Comprehensive research on the extent and nature of incest

victimization is rather limited. However, the available evidence
suggests several general trends: (1) the average age of incest
victims is 11 (but cases that begin as earlier as age 5 to 8 years are
not uncommon), (2) incest is rarely a one-time incident----instead,

Copyright @2024 190

Criminology Chapter 21: Rape and Other Sex Offenses

it typically continues over time and involves multiple types of

sexual activity, (3) most victims of incest remain quiet about their
victimization out of fear of the consequences for disclosure, (4)
some incest involves only one family member, but many of them
are serial offenders who will target multiple children when they
reach a certain age, and (5) fathers often rationalized their incest
by blaming their spouse for weak marital relations and for hostile
mother-daughter relations (Lifeskills Education 1991).

• Serial Sexual Murderers. Serial sexual predators who killer their victims
are an extremely rare type of sex offender. Although they represent far
less than 1% of all sex offenders, these sexual killers fit the stereotypical
image of sex offenders that is most commonly portrayed in television and
horror films.

Serial sexual murderers are unique from other sex offenders

because of the lethality of their sexual assaults, the greater
prevalence of their sexual histories, the selection of strangers as
their victims, and the motivations for their crimes. Research on
these “lust” serial killers indicates that they are strongly
motivated by elements of sexual addiction/compulsivity and
aberrant sexual fantasies (see Hickey 2006). Many of these
offenders are meticulous planners who rehearse their crimes,
stalk their victims, and select victims who will fulfill their ultimate
sexual fantasies. The fact that the actual sex offense did not “live
up” to this idealized fantasy is often the precursor to future sexual
predations to achieve the perfect crime.

b. Criminal History and Specialization/Escalation

The public stereotype of sex offenders is often in direct contradiction with the
empirical characteristics of these offenders that is derived from scientific studies
of them. For example, sex offenders are typically viewed as chronic/habitual
sexual predators who victimize strangers in acts that are motivated by sexual
compulsivity/addiction. It is undeniable that there are sexual predators that
perfectly fit this image. In addition, some sex offenders also follow a trajectory
from “hands off” offenses (e.g., exhibitionists, peepers) to “hands on” offenses
(e.g., rapists, molestations). Once they have escalated to sexual assaults, some
sex offenders also exhibit a high level of specialization by selecting only
particular types of victims for their crimes (e.g., young, blond boys under 10
years old) that fulfill a particular sexual fetish or paraphilia.

Copyright @2024 191

Criminology Chapter 21: Rape and Other Sex Offenses

Based on the existing research on sex offenders and recidivism (i.e., patterns of
repeat offending), the scientific evidence is generally inconsistent with each of
these profiles of sex offenders. In general, the bulk of the evidence on the
criminal history and offense trajectories of sex offenders compared to other
types of violent and property offenders reveals the following patterns:

• Recidivism: Sex offenders, as a group, have lower rates of repeat

offending than all other types of offenders except murders. In a large
national study of over 25,000 convicted felons released from prison
(Miethe, Olson, and Mitchell 2006), only about 26% of rapists and 31% of
child molesters had a prior arrest record (i.e., were recidivists). In
contrast, 43% of robbers, 56% of burglars, and 67% of drug offenders had
a prior record. Similarly, sex offenders had the lowest number of arrests
over their criminal careers (with an average of 6.8 arrests) compared to
an average of 10 arrests for other violent offenders, 11 arrests for drug
offenders, and an average of 14 prior arrests for property offenders.

• Specialization: Among offenders with 2 or more prior arrests, sex

offenders are less likely than any other type of offender to repeat the
same type of crime (i.e., specialization) over their criminal career. For
example, over 77% of property offenders and about 64% of violent
offenders repeated their particular crimes at least once over their
criminal careers (Miethe, Olson, and Mitchell 2006). However, these
researchers also found that only about 39% of sex offenders had another
arrest for a sex offense. In addition, only about 5% of sex offenders were
“complete specialists” (i.e., persons who were only arrested for sex
offenses and no other types of crime during their criminal career). These
findings indicate that the typical sex offender is a generalist (i.e., an
offender who mostly commits a variety of other non-sex offenses) and is
rarely a specialist.

• Escalation/Persistence: Persons who are arrested 3 or more times for

sex offenses are rare offenders---for example, only 7-8% of rapists and
child molesters released from prison in the mid 1990s were these types
of serial sex offenders (Miethe et al. 2006). Among this small group of
serial sex offenders, however, it is possible to determine whether sex
offending is a behavior that emerges only later in their criminal career
(i.e., escalation) or whether it is persistent behavior across the early,
middle, and latter stages of their arrest histories. Addressing these
questions of escalation/persistence, Miethe et al (2006) found that over
half of serial rapists and serial child molesters did not exhibit patterns of
escalation because their first arrests for sex offenses occurred within the
earliest stage of their criminal career. These serial offenders also did not
typically fit the notion of persistent predators because less than 40% of

Copyright @2024 192

Criminology Chapter 21: Rape and Other Sex Offenses

them (27% of serial rapists; 37% of serial molesters) had been arrested
for a sex offense in all three stages of their criminal career. In fact, the
typical serial sex offender (especially child molesters) is somewhat of a
spree-type offender (i.e., has 3 or more consecutive arrests for the same
offense) who has an early arrest history for these crimes (i.e., they are
temporary “specialists”) but have an arrest record that suggests some
desistance in sex offending in the last stages of their criminal careers.

Overall, these findings support the position that the typical sex offender is a
sporadic criminal who does not specialize in sexual crimes, does not escalate
their deviant behavior toward sex offending, and does not persist in sex offenses
over their entire criminal career. They also have lower risks of recidivism and
shorter criminal records than most other types of violent, property, and drug
offenders.

c. Sexual Paraphilia

Sexual paraphilias involve complex psychological disorders that are manifested

in sexual arousal from deviant/bizarre images or activities. Many psychologists
attribute these paraphilias to aberrant fantasy systems that are fueled by
traumatic childhood and adolescent experiences. The following paraphilias
provide a source of sexual arousal for many different types of sex offenders (see
Hickey 2006; Terry 2006):

• Animal Torture. These acts for some people provide sexual arousal
through the dominance and control that the animal abuser gets from
these actions.

• Anthropophagy. This paraphilia involves the eating of human flesh

(cannibalism). Many cultures have used cannibalism for spiritual and
ritualistic purposes. Beliefs that certain body parts of animals enhance
sexual arousal as aphrodisiacs and the perceived power/control from
these acts may serve as the basis for this particular sexual paraphilia.

• Autoeroticism. Sexual arousal through self-stimulation. These acts may

involve compulsive masturbation and types of sexual asphyxiation. Types
of sexual asphyxia include scarfing (i.e., using various objects [scarfs,
belts, ropes, plastic bags] to cut off the oxygen supply to the brain to
enhance sexual gratification) and aqua-erotica (i.e., asphyxia through
partial drowning to induce sexual excitation).

• Exhibitionism. The deliberate exposing of one’s genitals (usually male) to

an unsuspecting stranger. The DSM-IV requires that this behavior is a
recurring or repetitive activity over at least 6 months to be classified as a

Copyright @2024 193

Criminology Chapter 21: Rape and Other Sex Offenses

paraphilia. Exhibitionism provides offenders a momentary sense of

power/control. Exhibitionists are not typically viewed as dangerous
offenders, but a small proportion of them may escalate to more serious
sex offenses.

• Fetishisms. Sexual gratification by substituting objects for partners. Types

of fetishes include shoe/foot fetishes, lipstick, and underwear (“panty
bandits”).

• Gerontophilia. Seeking out elderly people for sexual purposes.

• Klismaphilia. Sexual arousal through the giving or receiving of enemas.

Young children are sometimes the unsuspecting victims of klismaphiliacs
who use enemas as a form of sexual abuse.

• Infibulation. Self-torture through excessive body piercing.

• Necrophilia. Sexual arousal by having sex with dead bodies/objects.

Watch Video Crim33:

Does Pornography Cause Sex Crimes?

• Pygalionism. Sexual involvement with dolls or mannequins. Both

pygalionists and necrophiliacs avoid rejection by having sex with
inanimate objects (dolls) or corpses.

• Pedophilia. Sexual relations with children.

• Pederasty. Adults who have anal intercourse with children.

• Pyromania. Fire setting for sexual arousal.

• Sadomasochism. Inflicting mental/physical pain on others (sadism) or

oneself (masochism).

• Scoptophilia (Voyeurism). “Peeping” through windows and other

activities to watch people for sexual gratification. Most “peepers” do not
progress beyond this stage by committing rapes, sexual assaults, or other
types of “hands on” sex offending.

Copyright @2024 194

Criminology Chapter 21: Rape and Other Sex Offenses

• Scatophilia. Sexual gratification by making obscene phone calls. Wide

variability exists in reasons and motives for obscene callers, but some use
obscene calls to masturbate to fantasies of control.

• Mixoscopia. Sexual arousal by seeing oneself in sexual scenes (mirrors

on ceilings, video cameras).

3. Victim and Offense Characteristics

National victimization data indicate that the following groups have the highest
risks of sexual assault victimization: women, the young (18-25 years old), the
unmarried (especially the separated and never married), racial/ethnic minorities,
and those with household income less than $15,000 (NCVS 2019). Police data on
“calls for service” also reveal a higher concentration of rape incidents in lower
income neighborhoods.

In terms of offense characteristics, most sexual assault victims indicate that their
crimes typically involved only one offender and one victim, occurred at night,
happened near or in the victim’s home, involved the use of a weapon, and most
victims said they knew their offender (by, at least, visual recognition) and did
something to protect themselves during the attack (Miethe et al 2006). Victim
resistance was associated with an increased chance that the sexual assault was
not completed, but this protective action was also associated with an increased
chance of victim injury beyond the sexual assault itself.

Most victims did not report their sexual victimization to the authorities because
of feelings that nothing would be done, a lack of evidence, and fear of
retaliation. As revealed in the analysis of NCVS statistical tables (NCVS 2019),
victims of attempted sex offenses were more likely to report their victimization
than victims of completed acts.

Sexual assaults by strangers were also more likely to be reported to the police
than acts by people known to the victim. Older victims (>50 years old) are also
more likely to report their sexual victimization than younger people (<25 year
olds).

The victim profile for sex offenses varies by the type of offender. For example,
stranger assaults are far most common among serial sexual murderers and least
common, by definition, for incest victims. Similarly, young children are the
victims of child molestations (by definition) and adolescent sex offenders,
whereas rapists commit their crimes against a wider age group.

Copyright @2024 195

Criminology Chapter 21: Rape and Other Sex Offenses

4. Prevention and Intervention

Efforts to control rape and other types of sexual assaults have involved a variety
of intervention and prevention programs. The criminal justice system has used
long-term incarceration as the primary punishment for these offenders. Over the
last two decades, law requiring sex offender registration and community
notification exist in all states to provide public notice of particular sex offenders
that are living in one’s neighborhood. The clinical treatment of sex offenders has
involved various types of aversion therapy and, more recently, cognitive-
behavioral approaches (Miethe et al 2006: 57). Unfortunately, with few
exceptions, these prevention/intervention programs have done little to increase
public safety or reduce the likelihood of sex offenses in American society.

Under the doctrine of deterrence, the threat of certain, severe, and swift
punishment is expected to have distinct effects on criminal behavior. First, by
using particular persons as examples of the consequences of illegal behavior, the
threat of punishment is assumed to scare other people from committing criminal
acts. The use of criminal punishments to deter other people is called general
deterrence. Second, the imposition of swift, certain, and severe punishment is
expected to lead convicted criminal to a crime-free life after they serve their
time. This effect of punishment on deterring individuals from committing future
crimes is called specific deterrence.

While both types of deterrence are commonly used to justify severe punishment
for sex offenders, there is no definitive evidence that the threat of punishment
will deter sex offenders. This is the case for several basic reasons: (1) the most
important component for deterrence to work is the certainty of punishment, and
(2) the certainty of punishment for sex offending is extremely low because (a)
only a small fraction of all sex offenses are known to the police and (b) only
about one half of the small number of known offenses are cleared by an arrest
(Miethe et al 2006:56). If the certainty of punishment for sex offenses is far less
than 1%, the threat of severe punishment is not going to deter these offenders.

Watch Video Crim34:

Rape Case Processing

Copyright @2024 196

Criminology Chapter 21: Rape and Other Sex Offenses

The passage of sex offender registration and community notification laws is

designed to increase public safety by alerting the community of the presence of
registered sex offenders in their neighborhood. Presumably, by having citizens
aware of the location of these offenders in their neighborhood, the public can
more closely monitor them and keep their children away from these sex
offenders.

Unfortunately, there are several major problems with these laws that limit their
ability to enhance public safety: (1) most sex offenders are not recidivists or
specialists--most of these offenders don’t have a record of repeat offending or a
tendency to specialist in particular types of sex offenses, (2) most sex offenders
victimize people that they know (especially other family members), but these
laws are predicated on the false idea of the greater risks for “stranger danger”,
and (3) if sufficiently motivated to engage in sex offenses, any registered sex
offender can simply travel outside their immediate notification area to
canvass/cruise for potential victims. Because these laws are based on
dubious/faulty assumptions about the dangerousness of sex offenders, they are
unlikely to be effective in deterring this behavior.

Both physical and chemical castration have been used as “treatment” for sex
offenders. Chemical castration is induced through the taking of drugs like Depo
Provera that results in sexual impotence and reduces the production of
testosterone. While some claims have been made about the effectiveness of
chemical castration for reducing sex offender’s recidivism, the basis of these
claims is flawed in several ways: (1) sex offenders are given chemical castration
on a voluntary basis---the comparison of the results from volunteers who take
this drug and those who get other options is flawed because differences
between groups could simply be reflective of the fact that volunteers want to get
help (i.e., it has nothing to do with the chemical castration) and (2) this idea
assumes that sex offending is a sex crime that is easily remedied by cutting off
one’s sex organs or immobilizing them chemically--however, most of the
research literature suggests that sex crimes are primarily crimes of
control/dominance/aggression rather than sex-motivated offenses. Even without
the capacity of a sexual response, most sex offenders can achieve their
motivational priority by dominating/controlling their victim by intimidation and
bodily penetration with inanimate objects (sticks, rods).

From a criminal opportunity perspective, reductions in the likelihood of sex

offending can occur by decreasing one’s exposure to dangerous situations and
increasing one’s social/physical guardianship through various types of situational
crime prevention activities (see, for review of situational crime prevention,
Clarke 1997). These crime prevention strategies include improving the visibility
and surveillability of public places at night (e.g., increasing street lighting, motion
detectors), self-defense training (e.g., to increase the likelihood of successful

Copyright @2024 197

Criminology Chapter 21: Rape and Other Sex Offenses

resistance against an offender), and the establishment of “buddy systems” to

maintain contact with friends when engaged in risky public activities (e.g., going
to parties/bars). Several other basic types of opportunity-reduction strategies for
sex offending have been recommended by police organizations and citizen
groups. These types of rape prevention activities include the following advice
(see Fay 1993: 609-610):

• If you live alone, only use your first initial and your last name on your
mailbox. Also, make up a name and put it on your mailbox to give the
appearance of a roommate.

• Never open the door automatically after a knock. Require people to give
their names and ask for proper I.D. for service personnel. Trust your
instincts and refuse entrance if you feel uneasy.

• Always look doors when you are in your car and when you leave it, even
if only for a short time.

• Be aware of what is around you when you are in a public place at

night. Listen for footsteps and voices nearby. Look around to see if you
are being followed.

Watch Video Crim35:

Rape Shield Laws (Effectiveness?)

Finally, various types of “clinical” treatment for sex offenders have been used
throughout history. Over the last several decades, aversion techniques (e.g.,
electric shock) have been replaced by cognitive-behavior therapy as principles of
effective treatment for sex offenders. Under this approach, sex offenders learn
how to anticipate and deal with aversive situations. The cognitive aspects of
these programs focus on teaching the person how certain thinking patterns are
causing their symptoms. The behavioral aspect is designed to weaken the
connection between these thoughts and their established reactions to
them. Ultimately, the cognitive-behavioral approach offers sex offenders a way
to make better decisions about appropriate and inappropriate conduct.

Copyright @2024 198

Criminology Chapter 21: Rape and Other Sex Offenses

Application Questions:

1. What are the major limitations of using police data to estimate the
prevalence of rape and other types of sexual assaults in a particular
jurisdiction?

2. According to Groth's work, what are the primary personality attributes of

the typical rapist and other sex offenders?

3. What are the dominant characteristics of the behavioral histories of sex

offenders based on the empirical research? Are most sex offenders
repeat offenders, do they specialize in their crimes, and are their patterns
of escalation in their offending?

4. Given the primary characteristics of sex offenders, why are sex offender
registration and community notification laws largely ineffective in reducing
the public's risk of sexual victimization?

5. From a deterrence perspective, why won't the threat of more severe

penalties for sex offending (e.g., giving sex offenders the death penalty)
deter most sex offenders?

Copyright @2024 199

Criminology Chapter 22: Personal/Institutional Robbery

Chapter 22:
Personal and Institutional Robbery

Objectives:

• Know the different types of robbery (e.g., personal vs. institutional

robbery) and their unique features.

• Know how the robbery rate in the U.S. has changed over the last 50 years.

• Identify the primary offender, victim, offense, and situational attributes

associated with robbery.

• Identify the major approaches currently used to prevent robbery.

The FBI defines robbery as “the taking or attempting to take anything of value
from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of
force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear” (UCR 2007). Robbery is
subcategorized in a variety of ways. The FBI, for example, makes distinctions by
(1) location of the robbery (e.g., highway/street/alley, convenience store, banks,
residents) and (2) type of weapon (e.g., gun, knife, “strong arm”). Another way
to classify robbery is by the type of victim (e.g., personal robberies [like
muggings and home invasions] and institutional robberies [like banks/stores]).
When using police data to estimate the prevalence and nature of robbery, the
following sources of definitional ambiguity need to be considered:

• What constitutes a “threat” or “attempted” robbery is subject to diverse

interpretation. Is a menacing look followed by an abrupt “Hey, you--you
got any money?” sufficient to count as a threatened/attempted robbery
because it puts the victim in fear? Even following the specific rules for
counting criminal incidents that are established in the UCR recording
manuals, some police agencies are likely to count this incident as a
threat/attempted robbery and others are not.

Copyright @2024 200

Criminology Chapter 22: Personal/Institutional Robbery

• There is also enormous variability in how particular police officers and

departments make distinctions between various types of personal
robberies and other types of larceny/theft. For example, if a pickpocket
brushes up against his/her victim while committing this theft, is this
technically a robbery or the property crime of larceny/theft? How about
if someone snatches a purse that is resting on the victim’s lap but does
not touch the victim--is this purse snatching a robbery or larceny? How
about the burglar who breaks into a house, is immediately confronted by
its owner upon entry, and then quickly pushes the victim out of the way
to escape--is this an attempted burglary or attempted robbery? Finally,
how about the stealing of a temporarily unoccupied car, its owner runs
after it, and is run over in this pursuit--is this type of carjacking a
robbery? While some police departments may classify each of these
incidents as a robbery, the problem is that some departments may not. If
the amount of these inconsistent recordings varies by jurisdiction and
over time (an unfortunately realistic assumption to make), any claims
about the relative prevalence of personal robberies over particular
geographical areas or over time are likely to be seriously flawed.

• The hierarchical rule used in the recording of UCR incidents counts only
the most serious offense in a criminal incident. Under this rule, the FBI
does not count incidents of both robbery-homicides and robbery-rapes as
robberies--instead, they are counted as homicides and rapes. However,
this coding rule doesn’t dramatically impact annual estimates of robbery
because these situations are relatively rare events (e.g., there were 595
homicides with a robbery motive in 2015 and over 327,000 robberies
were known to the police in this year). Under the NIBRS system (National
Incident Based Reporting System) that is now implemented in most
states, this problem with counting only the most serious crime doesn’t
exist because all types of crimes within a singular behavioral incident are
counted in NIBRS.
•

Watch Video Crim36:

Why Don’t People Report Robbery to the Police?

Given these sources of definitional ambiguity (and the additional problem that
most robberies are often not known to the police or cleared by an arrest), a
great deal of caution must be exercised in the interpretation of robbery trends

Copyright @2024 201

Criminology Chapter 22: Personal/Institutional Robbery

based on UCR data. Unfortunately, even with these flaws, UCR data provide the
best available information that we have on the national profile of institutional
and personal robberies known to the police.

1. The Prevalence and Distribution of Robbery Over Time and Place

The taking of another’s property by force has been a major form of crime
throughout American history. In the early colonial times, pirates looted/raided
ships of their precious cargo. On land, the early robbers would lay in wait along
roadways for well-to-doers and rob them of their valuables. During the Civil War
era, vigilante groups on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line engaged in numerous
collective acts of pillaging (i.e., looting). With the expansion of the Western
frontier, the targets of robbery became the stagecoach, the local banks, trains,
and cattle rustling.

During the early 20th century, some bank robbers (like John Dillinger) were
somewhat glamorized as a Robin Hood-type folk hero because of their anti-
establishment behavior and their style/grace during these heists. However,
most bank robberies in this depression era (e.g., “Baby Face” Nelson, Bonnie
Parker and Clyde Barrow) were quick to lose this romanticized image once they
began killing people in these crimes. Banks have a long history as targets for
robbery (because, according to bank robber Willie Sutton, “that’s where the
money is”). Some acts of extortion (e.g., kidnapping for ransom purposes) are
another type of robbery situation that also has a long history, but these acts
within the U.S. are relatively rare events.

According to UCR data on robberies known to the police, the U.S. robbery rate
has varied widely over the past 50 years. Robbery rates per 100,000 population
generally increased from the early 1960s to the mid 1970s, dropped for several
years and rose again until the early 1980s, dropped somewhat but stayed high
until the early 1990s, decreased substantially between the early 1990s and 2000,
and has continued to decline over the last two decades (see Graph below). The
robbery rate of 82 per 100,000 in 2019 is dramatically lower than the average
rate of about 220 in the 1990s. The robbery rate in 2019 represents the lowest
rate in the U.S. since the mid 1960s.

Both UCR data on robbery offense rates and NCVS data on robbery victimization
rates show a similar pattern of reductions in robbery rates over the last three
decades (1993-2019). UCR data estimates that about 270,000 robberies were
known to the police in 2019. In contrast, the national victimization survey
(NCVS) estimates that about 534,000 people were victimized by robbery in this
year (BJS 2019). According to NCVS data, far less than 2% of U.S. households are
“touched” by a robbery each year.

Copyright @2024 202

Criminology Chapter 22: Personal/Institutional Robbery

Robbery Rates per 100k (UCR 1960-2019)

300

250

200

150

100

0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Robbery Victimization Rates per 100k

(NCVS 1993-2019)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018

Robbery offense rates vary widely across geographical areas. Based on UCR data
for 2019, cities with more than 250,000 population have substantially higher
robbery rates (202 per 100,000) than nonmetropolitan counties (10 per
100,000). The region with the highest rate of robbery is the West (101 per 100k),
followed by the South (82 per 100k), the Northeast (72 per 100k), and the
Midwest (68 per 100k).

Copyright @2024 203

Criminology Chapter 22: Personal/Institutional Robbery

2. Offender Characteristics

Similar to other offenders in violent crimes, persons arrested for robbery are
disproportionately males, persons under 25 years old, and African Americans
(UCR 2019). Their criminal histories are often more extensive than other violent
offenders. Both instrumental and expressive motivations underlie offenders’
decisions to engage in various types of robbery.

Males are the arrested offenders in about 84% of all robberies known to the
police (UCR 2019). Over half (52%) of robbery arrestees are under 25 years
old. About one third (38%) of these persons are under 21 and about one-fifth of
them (22%) are juveniles under 18 years old. A clear majority (53%) of arrestees
for robbery are African Africans. These demographic characteristics of persons
arrested for robbery have changed somewhat over time. For example, in 1962,
the relative proportion of robbery arrestees in each of these social groups
was: male (95%), under 25 (65%), and African American (58%).

Studies of felony defendants processed in state courts (see Rainville and Reaves
2003) reveal that the vast majority of robbery defendants had a prior felony
arrest. These defendants were far more likely to have a prior felony record than
murders, rapists, and aggravated assaulters.

As crimes with economic benefits to its offenders, instrumental motivations

(e.g., using robbery as an instrument or means of achieving an explicit goal)
seem to be a primary basis for these crimes. However, rather than being
methodical planners and calculators, many robbers are primarily opportunistic
criminals who become motivated by immediate situational cues. This image of
opportunistic and expressive robbers (who act on the spur of the moment
without previous contemplation) is most consistent with the modus operandi for
street-level muggers and many carjackers (especially those who steal unoccupied
cars that are left running by their owners). In contrast, persons who engage in
bank robbery and other types of institutional robberies (e.g., using force to steal
from convenience stores) tend to exhibit far more planning and calculation in
their response sequences in these crimes. This planning and calculation involves
making a series of decisions before engaging in robbery about (1) when and
where to commit the crime, (2) the type of targets to select, (3) planning ways to
subdue the victim, (4) the type of weapon that will be used or threatened, (5)
how to conceal one’s identity and avoid detection on video surveillance, and (6)
some contemplation about alternative escape routes if the original plans run
amuck (see also Miethe et al 2006: 64-65; Cornish and Clarke 1986).

Copyright @2024 204

Criminology Chapter 22: Personal/Institutional Robbery

3. Victim Characteristics

The targets of robbery can be both persons and physical structures. Based on
the research on situational crime prevention and interviews with offenders
about their target-selection decisions, attractive locations for institutional
robberies include physical structures that have the following characteristics: (1)
high visibility and high accessibility (e.g., having multiple exit routes), (2) low
protection or guardianship (e.g., weak or no internal/external security officers,
limited customers), and (3) high portability and liquidity of the stolen goods (e.g.,
places with large amounts of cash are best on both characteristics). The same
factors also apply to the selection of potential targets for personal
robbery/mugging.

The risks of victimization by personal robbery are considerable higher for some
groups than others. For example, while risks of robbery victimization are similar
for men and women, analysis of the NCVS data tables (2019) indicates that these
robbery risks are about 5 times higher for the 21-24 year old age group than
among persons 65 or older. For both males and females, the risks of robbery
victimization in adulthood tend to decrease with age. The risks of robbery
victimization are twice as high for Blacks (2.8 per 100k) than Whites (1.8 per
100k). Robbery victimization risks are also slightly higher for Hispanics than non-
Hispanics.

Based on NCVS data (2019), almost half (49%) of victims of personal robbery
were attacked by strangers. Strangers also represented a higher proportion
among attempted robberies than completed robberies. However, in both
victimization surveys and police reports, the prevalence of “stranger danger” in
robbery may be overestimated. This is the case because (1) forcible thefts
involving family members or ex-partners are often considered “private matters”
and not typically reported/recorded in either NCVS or UCR data, and (2) many
street robberies of persons engaged in illegal activities (e.g., “rip offs” of drug
dealers and prostitutes) are not typically reported to the police (because these
victims are also engaged in illegal behavior) and these types of people are rarely
included in victimization surveys.

When these factors are considered, it would be safe to conclude that the
majority of personal robberies involve non-strangers. However, in the case of
institutional or business robberies (e.g., banks, convenience stores), the idea of
“stranger danger” is an appropriate descriptor of the typical victim/offender
relationship. Several other victim attributes are associated with the risks of
robbery victimization. These include (1) people who have never married have
greater robbery risks than other types of marital status (these risks are lowest
for widowers) and (2) as family income increases, the risks of personal robbery

Copyright @2024 205

Criminology Chapter 22: Personal/Institutional Robbery

decrease (i.e., people with family income less than $25,000 have far greater risks
than those with incomes greater than $75,000) (NCVS 2019).

4. Offense and Situational Attributes

Robberies differ in terms of a number of offense and situational attributes.

These characteristics include its location or target (e.g., personal robberies in the
home or street vs. robberies of institutional targets [banks/stores]), weapon use,
the monetary yield or “take” from the crime, the likelihood of victim injury, and
patterns of victim self-protection during the incident.

Based on national police data (UCR 2019), the most common location for
robbery is the street or highway. Nationally, about 34% of robberies occur in
these locations. These street/highway robberies account for a slightly higher
proportion of robberies in the Northeast (39%) than any other region.

These street muggings are also far more prevalent in large metropolitan areas
that in small cities and rural areas. Residential robberies (i.e., violent home
invasions) represent about 16% of all robberies. Home invasions are more
prevalent among robberies in the South (21%) than other regions. Nationally,
about 10% of the robberies occur at service stations and convenience
stores. There is little difference in the relative prevalence of these types of
robberies over regions. For each region and nationally, only about 2% of
robberies involved banks and other financial institutions. The type of robbery
target/location also varies across urban and rural areas. For example, over a
third (39%) of the robberies in large metropolitan areas are street muggings, but
these street heists represent only about 22% of all robberies in small cities of less
than 25,000 residents (UCR 2019).

Robbery Locations by Geographical Region (UCR 2019)

Location US Total Northeast Midwest South West

Street/Highway 34% 39% 37% 32% 34%

Residence 16 14 19 21 10

Commercial House 17 11 13 16 21

Convenience Store 7 4 5 7 7

Gas/Service Station 3 2 4 3 2

Criminology Chapter 22: Personal/Institutional Robbery

Bank 1 2 2 1 1

Miscellaneous 22 28 19 19 24

Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

The primary weapon used in robberies is a “strong arm” methods (42%),

followed closely by firearms (41%). These “strong arm” methods involve using
one’s physical size and strength to subdue or threaten the victim (e.g., grabbing
them, throwing the victim against the wall, physically posturing in their
face). The use of knives and other cutting objects (8%) and other “dangerous
weapons” (9%) account for the remaining weapons of robbery. The threat or use
of a firearm is most common in institutional/business robberies (e.g., banks,
convenience stores, commercial houses), whereas “strong arm” methods are
more prevalent among street muggers.

The average “take” from robberies varies considerably by type of offense. Based
on national police data (UCR 2019), the most lucrative targets for robberies are
banks and other financial institutions. In contrast, convenience stores yield the
least amount of cash/property for robberies. The ranking of specific robbery
locations on the basis of the average value of the items stolen per incident
include the following: (1) banks ($4,213), (2) residences ($2,560), (3) commercial
houses ($1,772), (4) street/highway ($1,529), (5) gas or service stations ($1,248),
and (6) convenience stores ($1,006). The average “take” in 2019 for all types of
robberies combined was about $1,797. For comparative purposes, these average
economic gains from robbery are about $600 more than the typical “take” from
the non-violent property crime of larceny/theft ($1,162), but they are
substantially lower than the estimated average economic gains from burglary
($2,661) and motor vehicle theft ($8,886).

Although it is interesting to look at the average yield from different types of

robberies, this focus on the economic “benefits” overemphasizes the financial
motivations underlying these crimes. Instead, many of these offenders are also
motivated by a wide variety of non-financial purposes. Some of these
“seductions" (Katz 1988) for committing robbery include:

• the thrill/excitement underlying these crimes---that is, the “rush” of

“living on the edge”, “jacking someone”, or “dancing with the devil” by
engaging in risky/dangerous behavior that has serious consequences if
you fail (e.g., going to prison, being shot/killed by the victim).

• the perceived status-enhancing benefits by these “character contests”

and other public displays to demonstrate one’s masculinity and

Criminology Chapter 22: Personal/Institutional Robbery

toughness to delinquent peers/friends (Luckenbill 1977; Deibert and

Miethe 2003).

• the sense of empowerment that robbery may provide through the act of
controlling the victim, taking their valuables, and possibly exacting some
level of revenge on them as members of the “establishment” who have
presumably oppressed them. This type of thought process is especially
likely among offenders who lack the opportunity to achieve social and
financial recognition through the legitimate, institutionalized means of
living the American Dream.

As acts of physical violence, there is always the possibility of victim injury in

situations of institutional and personal robbery. According to NCVS data (2019),
about one-quarter (25%) of robbery victims sustained physical injuries in these
attacks. Victim injury was more likely in robberies involving non-strangers than
strangers --these findings may be attribute to either of these 2 factors: (1) non-
strangers are more likely to engage in resistance and self-protection against
known parties (and these protective actions increase their likelihood or injury) or
(2) victims are more willing to define forcible thefts by non-strangers as actual
robberies when they are injured in these incidents.

Given this problem with self-protection being a contributory factor in the

victim’s definition of a personal theft as a robbery, it is virtually impossible to get
an accurate estimate of the prevalence of self-protective measures in these
offenses. With this caveat in mind, however, it is interesting to note that the
majority of individuals who are classified in the NCVS surveys as robbery victims
said they took self-protective measures. The primary types of self-protection
included “resisted or captured the offender” (23%), “persuaded or appeased
offender” (18%), “ran away or hid” (14%), and “attacked the offender”
(12%). Physical resistance was associated with a slightly higher risk of victim
injury, but this relationship isn’t consistent across all types of physical assault
(e.g., “running away” seems to reduces the risks of injury in robberies). The
problem of temporary ordering (e.g., was physical resistance a cause or
consequence of the injuries?) compounds the difficulty in making any definitive
statements about the prevalence and/or effectiveness of self-protective
measures in robbery situations.

5. Prevention Programs for Robbery

Similar to other types of violent crime, efforts to control robbery have involved
criminal sanctions and a variety of situational crime prevention programs.
Data on felony defendants in state courts (Durose and Langan 2007) indicate
that about one-half (46%) of the persons arrested for robbery received a felony

Criminology Chapter 22: Personal/Institutional Robbery

conviction. Nearly three-fourths (73%) of convicted robbers were given a prison

sentence. The average maximum sentence for these offenders was about 8
years. Given the instrumental motivations for their crimes (i.e., the typical
robber engages in some level of rational thought to pick lucrative targets),
robbers should be the type of offenders who are deterred by incarceration and
other serious criminal sanctions. Unfortunately, the potential deterrent value of
criminal sanctions for these offenders is weakened by several factors: (1) the
majority of robberies (especially personal robberies involving known parties) are
not known to the police and (2) only about 30% of robberies known to the police
are cleared by an arrest (UCR 2019). Given this low certainty of punishment, the
typical robber is unlikely to be deterred by the threat of legal sanctions.

Situational crime prevention (SCP) involves a variety of activities that are

designed to reduce criminal opportunities by increasing the costs and reducing
the benefits to offenders (see Clark 1997). Many of these SCP strategies for
reducing robbery involve different types of target-hardening activities. However,
effective interventions through SCP activities require an understanding of the
situational context in which particular types of robbery take place. Summarized
below are the crime profiles of several types of robbery situations and the
particular types of SCP strategies that may be effective in reducing the criminal
opportunities for these crimes.

a. Street Muggers

The typical street mugger is a young male who works alone and preys on isolated
individuals in open public places. Most of these crimes occur at night (under the
veil of darkness) to conceal the offender’s identity, but also because fewer
bystanders are around who may intervene and thwart the attack. The typical
modus operandi involves a “blitz attack”--for example, walking up from behind
someone, quickly subduing the victim with a blow to the head or the placement
of a knife/gun in the victim’s back, demanding/grabbing their valuables, and
then immediately leaving the situation. When doing frontal attacks, many
muggers will also use some type of excuse (e.g., asking for a light or smoke,
directions, spare change) to make initial contact with the victim and temporarily
defuse any defensive posturing that may have occurred if the offender simply
ran up to the victim. Once within close proximity to the victim, the mugger is in a
prime position to carry out the crime.

Most street muggers are highly opportunistic offenders and engage in only
rudimentary planning of their offenses. They may stake out particular areas
known for illegal activities (e.g., street-level drug dealing, prostitution) because
robbing these types of people may provide quick cash and drugs with lower risks
the victims will report the crime to the police. Aside from victimizing people who

Criminology Chapter 22: Personal/Institutional Robbery

are involved deviant lifestyles, street muggers will select their targets on the
basis of a kind of "bounded rationality" (Shover 1996)--that is, they tend to pick
people who are alone, less capable of resistance, easily accessible, and perceived
as having portable/liquidable things worth stealing [money, jewelry, small
electronic gadgets]. In other cases, they will select less rational targets for some
other reason (e.g., someone disrespects them and tries to act superior so they
mug them to “put them in their place”!). The street name for acting like you are
superior is called “flossing” (Jacobs et al 2003). Besides taking their stuff, some
street robbers will also give them a “parting shot” (e.g., hitting/shooting them
while they are leaving) to further exact some pain on them.

Given this context for street robberies, effective SCP strategies would involve
rather simple actions like increasing social guardianship (e.g., encourage people
to hang out with other people when in public places at night), more street
lighting, and removing physical objects (e.g., overgrown shrubs/vegetation;
abandon buildings) that provide cover for offenders and reduce
visibility/surveillability of public spaces by bystanders. Greater police canvassing
of “hot spots” for various types of illegal activity in particular areas is another
SCP approach. Given the idea of "flossing” and the approach strategies often
used by street muggers, potential victims can also reduce these criminal
opportunities by simply being more observant of their own behavior when in
particular public places at night.

b. Convenience Store Robberies

While representing less than 10% of the targets for robbery, the growth of
convenience stores that are open 24-7 (all 24 hours, 7 days a week) has provided
new opportunities for robbery victimization. Several aspects of these businesses
contribute to their attractiveness as crime targets. First, they are visible and
easily accessible targets, often located along major transportation arteries that
provide immediate escape routes.

Second, the small physical size of most convenience stores provides potential
robbers an environment that can be easily scoped for electronic surveillance
equipment and/or the presence of other customers, and it has multiple items
worth stealing (e.g., cash, alcohol, tobacco, etc.) within a narrow space.

Third, the attractiveness of these locations for robbery is further enhanced by (1)
the limited number of co-workers (usually only 1 or 2) to prevent the crime, (2)
the use of a cash register that places valuables within a well-defined space
behind the counter, and (3) the physical design of a straight pathway from the
counter to the front door that allows robbers a clear and direct escape route
(Miethe et al 2006: 73-74). From a SCP perspective, the best way to reduce these

Criminology Chapter 22: Personal/Institutional Robbery

types of robberies is by changing the physical environment of these places to

increase target hardening, increase physical guardianship, and reduce the
potential yield from offenders.

Many of these tactics have been implemented in most convenience stores and
include (1) installing cash drop boxes to reduce the actual economic losses from
these crimes (and posting signs that say “limited cash available” to possibly
reduce offender’s motivations), (2) adding staff and better surveillance
equipment to increase offender’s perceived risks of getting caught, and (3) move
counters away from the front door to reduce blitz attacks (Miethe et al 2006:
74).

c. Bank Robbery

The situational context of bank robbery is often different than other types of
robbery. The primary difference involves its greater level of planning and the
greater frequency of co-offenders in the commission of the crime. Many bank
robbers will conduct trial runs to get an idea of the nature of the routine
activities that are occurring within a particular bank at a particular time. When
co-offenders are involved, the calculation and planning aspects involve decisions
about playing specialized roles and action patterns during the heist.

A blitz attack to quickly subdue security officers and bank alarms is one strategy
that is used among "crews" or teams of bank robbers. When only one offender is
involved in these crimes, the typical modus operandi is not a blitz
attack. Instead, these offenders will often wait in line for the next available
teller and quietly slip them a note demanding money. This note is usually of the
form “give me small bills, $10, $20, and no bait pack--the bait pack is a cluster of
bills that has a color dye that explodes upon removal, discoloring the money and
marking the offender with permanent ink.

As major types of protective actions against bank robbery, a number of safety

features have been imposed. For example, many banks now contain full glass
partitions that go from the counter to the ceiling to prevent bank robberies from
entering the cage area. Full-length bars have also been added to reduce the
“jump over the counter” and other blitz attacks. The greater use of electronic
surveillance/monitoring, increased training of bank security officers, and the
redesign of bank access points (e.g., providing security screening before entering
the bank) are some additional ways that the physical opportunities for bank
robberies have been minimized.

Over the last two decades, however, the precipitous rise in bank branches within
other commercial buildings and the use of ATM machines for financial

Criminology Chapter 22: Personal/Institutional Robbery

transactions has provided new opportunities for robberies. In these new

environments for both institutional and personal robbery, the same basic
principles of SCP apply. For example, for ATM machines to be in relatively safe
locations for their users, they should be placed in open public areas that have
high levels of public surveillability and low cover for potential offenders (e.g., no
trees/shrubs, covered walkways).

In the case of bank branches within shopping malls or large grocery stores, it is
especially important to locate them well within the interior of the wider business
complex. While these bank branches may be more convenient for customers
when they are located on the perimeter of business complexes, they are also
convenient and more accessible for potential bank robbers in these same
locations.

Watch Video Crim37:

ATM/Cash Machines

Criminology Chapter 22: Personal/Institutional Robbery

Application Questions:

1. What types of personal robberies are most likely to be under-reported or

unknown to the police?

2. What is the typical profile of robbery offenders, victims, and the situations
in which these crimes occur?

3. What are some of the motivations underlying an offender's decision to

engage in robbery?

4. How are street muggers different than bank robbers in terms of their
modus operandi and other characteristics of their crimes?

5. Provide a list of the strengths and weaknesses of target hardening as an

effective method of situational crime prevention for different types of
robbers.

Criminology Chapter 23: Residential/Non-Residential Burglary

Chapter 23:
Residential and Non-Residential Burglary

Objectives:

• Know the different types of burglaries (e.g., residential vs. non-

residential, daytime vs. nighttime burglaries) and the definitional issues
surrounding how theses offenses are counted/recorded in official crime
data.

• Know how burglary rates in the U.S. have changed over the last 50 years.

• Identify the major offender, victim, offense, and situational attributes

associated with burglary.

• Identify the specific types of situational crime prevention strategies used

to reduce the risks of burglary.

Burglaries involve the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or a theft

(UCR 2019). Attempted forcible entry into a structure also counts as a burglary
under the FBI’s definition. Under the early common law tradition, burglary was
limited to a “dwelling house” (i.e., a structure regularly used as a place for
sleeping) and the lands and buildings surrounding the dwelling (e.g., garbage,
barn, tool shed). However, most state statutes and the counting rules under the
UCR data collection protocol now consider burglary the unlawful entry into any
type of residential or non-residential structure.

There are two major sources of definitional ambiguity that are likely to affect
estimates of the prevalence of burglary from UCR data. First, the distinction
between burglary and trespass is often muddled.

Trespass is the unauthorized entry on the land or premises of another and is a

basic element of the crime of burglary. When there is a trespass of an occupied
dwelling, the incident is likely to be recorded as a burglary. However, for non-
residential structures, it is often unclear whether an unlawful entry will be

Criminology Chapter 23: Residential/Non-Residential Burglary

counted as a trespass or non-residential burglary. Second, when a breaking and

entering involves a physical threat or injury to the victim, burglaries are recorded
as particular types of violent crimes (e.g., aggravated assaults, ‘home invasion”
robberies). However, if coders do not follow the hierarchical rule in these cases,
estimates of the prevalence of burglary may not be underestimated by the UCR
policy of only counting the most serious crime.

1. The Prevalence and Distribution of Burglaries Over Time and

Space

Based on UCR data over the last five decades, estimates of burglary offense rates
in the U.S. reveal distinct temporal patterns. These rates increased greatly from
the early 1960s until peaking in 1981, followed by a rather precipitous and
relatively consistent drop over the next three decades. The burglary rate of 340
per 100,000 in 2019 represents the lowest rate in the U.S. since 1960. There
were over 1.1 million burglaries known to the police in 2019 (UCR 2019). This
translates into a burglary being committed and known to the police every 22
seconds.

Watch Video Crim38:

The Hoteling Rule

Burglary Rates per 100k (UCR 1960-2019)

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Criminology Chapter 23: Residential/Non-Residential Burglary

Burglary Vicitmization Rates per 100k

(NCVS 1993-2019)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017

The general decline in burglary offense rates over the last three decades is also
found in NCVS estimates of burglary victimization rates (see Graph above). These
national victimization data indicate that the burglary victimization rates in the
U.S. have steadily decreased from about 64 per 1000 households in 1993 to a
rate of 17 per 1000 households in 2019.

Burglary offense rates exhibit wide variability across geographical areas. National
data on known offenses (UCR 2019) reveal several substantial differences in
burglary rates by the following geographical classifications:

• Burglary rates are significantly higher in the South than other regions of
the country. These rates are also far below the national average of 340
per 100,000 in the Northeast. The complete regional rankings (and their
burglary rates for 2019) are: (1) South (400 per 100k), (2) West (391 per
100k), (3) Midwest (315 per 100k), and (4) Northeast (167 per 100k).

• Since the early 1960s, the Northeast has consistently had the lowest
burglary rate in the county. In contrast, burglary rates in the early 1960s
were highest in the Western region, substantially higher than the South
and other regions (see UCR 1962-65). California and Nevada typically had
the highest burglary rates in the country in this historical period.
Nevada’s burglary rate for 2019 (503 per 100k) and the California rate
(386 per 100k) are still above the national average.

Criminology Chapter 23: Residential/Non-Residential Burglary

• Large metropolitan areas (cities with > 250,000 population) have far
higher burglary rates than small cities (< 25,000 population) and rural
areas.

Spatial studies of police “calls for service” in large metropolitan areas also
indicate wide differences in burglary rates within these areas. Contrary to the
popular beliefs that wealthy neighborhoods should have greater risks of burglary
than poor areas (because there are more valuable/portable things to steal in
wealthy areas), the primary “hot spots” for residential burglary are actually
located within lower income areas. According to social disorganization theory,
these lower income areas have greater risks of residential burglary because they
have lower levels of community-based social control due to high population
mobility, economic marginality, and lower monitoring/supervision of youth.

2. Offender Characteristics

Persons arrested for burglary have many of the social characteristics of other
types of offenders. Arrested burglars are disproportionately male, young, and
African American. We don’t know if this arrest profile represents all burglars
because (1) most burglaries are not known to the police and (2) only about 14%
of known burglaries are cleared by an arrest. If people who “burgle” without
detection are different than the small minority who get caught, then focusing on
the characteristics of burglary arrestees may provide a very distorted view of
these offenders and the motives and modus operandi of their crimes.

Based on arrest data (UCR 2019), males represent about 79% of those arrested
for burglary. About one third (33%) of the arrested burglars were under 25 years
old and about one-eighth (12%) of them were juveniles under 18. African
Americans accounted for more than one fourth (29%) of the arrested burglars, a
rate that is almost three times higher than their proportion within the general
U.S. population.

The demographic pattern of persons arrested for burglary has changed markedly
over the last 40-50 years for some of these social groups. For example, the
proportion of burglary arrests involving female offenders has more than
quadrupled from about 4% in the early 1960s to about 21% in 2019.

The proportion of burglary arrests for persons over 25 years old has also more
than doubled over this time period (from around 23% in 1962 to 67% in 2019),
whereas juvenile arrests for this crime have decreased by a greater proportion
over this time period (from 51% to 12%). The racial composition of burglary

Criminology Chapter 23: Residential/Non-Residential Burglary

arrestees, however, has exhibited no change over time--for example, 33% of

these arrestees were African Americans in 1962 compared to 29% in 2019.

The research literature on criminal careers indicates that burglars often have
prior arrests but they don’t appear to specialize or escalate their criminal activity
into violent predation. While they often have extensive criminal arrest records,
the typical burglar is a generalist with prior arrests for various types of crime,
including violent crimes, drug dealing, and other property crimes (see Miethe et
al 2006: 83). Among some burglars, there may be a relatively short period of
specialization in particular types of burglary situations (e.g., breaking into side
windows of homes within gated communities). The fact that humans are
creatures of habit may explain the use of a similar modus operandi in committing
a series of burglaries. However, as mostly generalists and opportunists, burglars
will get involved in a variety of different crimes if and when particular
opportunities are presented.

Based on interviews of convicted burglars, much is known about the motivations

for burglary and the particular situational factors that underlie their selection of
crime targets. These patterns are summarized below:

• Burglars are motivated by both financial and intrinsic/psychic

factors. Both novices and professionals engage in burglaries of homes
and non-residential structures to achieve financial rewards. Their thefts
focus on expensive and portable items that can be easily converted to
cash (e.g., jewelry, electronics that are widely pawned/fenced). Some of
intrinsic and psychic motivations include what Jack Katz (1988) calls the
“seductions of crime” (e.g., the thrill/excitement of all stages of the
crime-commission sequence) and feelings of empowerment and self-
enhancement that derive from the successful completion of these
challenges.

• Both elements of planning and spontaneity characterize the actions of

burglars. Some of these offenders are pure opportunists who have no
planning or premeditation toward burglary. For these offenders, an open
door or window, the immediate visibility of an attractive item, and the
temporary absence of its owner are often sufficient cues to commit a
spontaneous theft within this setting. In contrast, extensive planning and
calculation is the blue print for more seasoned/professional burglars. For
these burglars, planning activities may involve canvassing particular areas
for possible targets, identifying patterns of foot and vehicle traffic at
specific times and days, establishing entry points and escape routes, and
identifying the type of electronic and human security in this
location. Between these two extremes, however, there are
“opportunistic planners” (Bennett and Wright 1984) who find an

Criminology Chapter 23: Residential/Non-Residential Burglary

opportunity and then act upon it after some preliminary deliberation and
planning. Most research suggests that the typical burglar is this type of
opportunistic planner.

• The primary factors that underlie a burglar’s target selection include its
surveillability (i.e., the extent to which a structure is overseen and
observable by neighbors or passersby), accessibility (i.e., the ease of
getting into the structure and taking valuables within it), and signs of
occupancy (e.g., interior light, seeing people inside, noises/voices within
the structure, cars outside of residence, the build-up of trash and
newspapers around the front door). These signs of occupancy are
especially important because the typical burglar chooses this crime over
robbery because they don’t want to have a confrontation with anyone
(Cronwell, Olson, and Avery 1991).

• Target hardening activities (e.g., having extra locks, bars on windows,

exterior flood lights, motion detectors, alarms, dogs) reduce the criminal
opportunities for novice burglars and other opportunistic offenders.
Unfortunately, most of these crime prevention measures have little
effect on deterring experienced burglars because they know how to
easily circumvent them.

Watch Video Crim40:

Do Dogs Deter Burglars?

3. Victim Characteristics

Particular types of structures are more conducive to burglary victimization than

others because of the nature of their physical design and the characteristics of
their occupants. Data from national victimization surveys (NCVS 2006-07) are
used here to summarize the physical and social characteristics of households
that are linked with higher risks of burglary victimization.

Based on NCVS data for 2019, the estimated rate of household burglary was
about 17 per 1000 U.S. households. However, these rates varied dramatically by
the age, race, and the family income of the head of the household (see Table
23.1):

Criminology Chapter 23: Residential/Non-Residential Burglary

• Households headed by women have a slightly higher burglary

victimization rate than male-headed households (19 vs. 15 per 1000
households).
• Households headed by Blacks have a slightly higher risk of household
burglary than households headed by Whites (20 vs. 16 per
1000). Hispanic-headed households had the same risks of burglary
victimization than non-Hispanic households (17 per 1000).

• Households headed by persons under 20 years old have a higher rate of

burglary than households headed by persons age 65 or older (24 vs. 13
per 1000 households). Residential burglary rates generally decrease with
increases in the age of the household head (see Table 23.1). The lower
risks of household burglary for older adults have been attributed to
several factors:
(1) living in single-unit dwellings in higher income areas,
(2) greater protection of their homes by spending more time within
them, and
(3) greater participation in situational crime prevention that reduces
their risk of victimization.

• Households with lower family income have greater rates of household

burglary than higher-income households. These rates are 50 per 1000 for
households with an income of less than $15,000 compared to a rate of 12
per 1000 households with income of greater than $75,000. Generally, as
the household income increases, the risks of burglary decrease.

• Households with 6 or more residents have a higher risk of household

burglary than any other living arrangement. The higher risks of burglary
for these large households is attributed to the tendency for these
residents to be younger, have less household income, and live in multi-
unit dwellings (i.e., apartment complexes) that are more prone to
property victimization.

Criminology Chapter 23: Residential/Non-Residential Burglary

• Renters have higher rates of burglary victimization than homeowners (33

vs. 18 per 1000 households). These differences by ownership status are
attributed to differences in age, income, and household size between
renters and homeowners.

Table 23.1: Burglary Victimization Rates by Victim Attributes

Victim Household Victim Household
Characteristics Burglary Characteristic Burglary
Total All Households 17.2 17.2

Gender: Income:
Male 15.3 < $ 7.5k 26.9
Female 19.1 $ 7.5k - $ 15k 49.9
$ 15k -$ 25k 32.2
$ 25k- $ 35k 19.0
$ 35k - $ 50k 18.3
$ 50k- $ 75k 13.1
> $ 75k 11.8

Race: Household Size:

White 16.2 1 person 24.5
Black 20.2 2-3 people 17.3
Other 22.0 4-5 people 22.9
6 or more 38.5

Ethnicity: Ownership Status:

Hispanic 17.2 Rented 32.7
Non-Hispanic 17.2 Owned 18.3

Age: Urbanicity:
12-19 23.9 Urban 25.3
20-34 19.6 Suburban 18.7
35-49 16.4 Rural 25.7
50-64 19.8
65 + 12.8
Source: NCVS Victimization Analysis Tool ([Link]), 2018-2019.

Criminology Chapter 23: Residential/Non-Residential Burglary

4. Offense Attributes

Different types of burglary are distinguished in UCR data on the basis of the
location (i.e., residential vs. non-residential), time of day (i.e., daytime vs.
nighttime), and method of entry (i.e., forcible, unlawful, attempted
forcible). Other characteristics of burglary offenses (e.g., the average dollar loss,
the victim’s activity at the time of the offense, whether or not the burglary was
reported) can also be identified from national and local police data, victimization
surveys, and interviews with burglars themselves.

According to UCR data, about two-thirds (63%) of the burglaries known to the
police in 2019 were residential burglaries and remaining one-third (37%)
occurred in a non-residential structure. Forcible entry was the most common
method of entry for all burglaries (56%) and only a relatively small proportion of
the known offenses involved attempted forcible entry (6%). This low proportion
of attempted burglaries doesn’t necessary mean that burglaries are rarely
attempted. Instead, this low number is more likely to represent the simple fact
that the public does not report many attempted burglaries to the police. The
higher rate of attempted burglaries found in victimization surveys (e.g., 20% of
burglaries were attempts in the NCVS data) provides some support for this
interpretation.

Although a majority of all burglaries occur in daytime hours, there are wide
differences by type of burglary. In particular, the vast majority (66%) of
residential burglaries occur in daytime hours (6am to 6pm), whereas most non-
residential burglaries occur at night (54%). Both of these patterns may be
attributable to preferences among burglars in avoiding direct contact with a
people when committing these crimes. The fact that (1) homes are more likely to
be unoccupied during daytime hours (e.g., while people are working and kids are
in school) and (2) non-residential structures (e.g., business offices) are more
likely to be unoccupied in nighttime hours offers some indirect evidence to
support this argument.

Several other offense attributes are also associated with burglaries. First, the
average dollar loss to victims per burglary offense was about $2,661 (UCR 2019).
This average loss amount is similar for both residential and non-residential
burglaries. Second, at least one fourth of the victims of burglary were sleeping or
involved in other activities at home when the crime occurred. Third, according to
NCVS data (2019), less than half (49%) of victims reported their residential
burglaries to the police.

Criminology Chapter 23: Residential/Non-Residential Burglary

The primary reasons given by victims for not reporting their burglary was (1)
“[stolen] object recovered; offender unsuccessful” (21%), (2) “a lack of proof
[that the crime occurred] (12%)”, and (3) “police would not want to be
bothered” (11%). Fourth, reporting rates for burglary were highest among
victims with family income greater than $75,000 (61% reported it) and these
rates were lowest among victims with family income of $7,000 or less (40%
reported it).

5. Prevention of Burglary

As is true of other crimes, ongoing efforts to prevent burglary have focused on

the deterrent effect of criminal sanctions and reducing the physical
opportunities to commit these crimes. Several factors may facilitate and/or
impede the deterrent value of legal punishments and decrease the physical
opportunities for these crimes.

Convicted burglars are given a variety of sentences for their crimes. The
punishment depends on the offender’s criminal history and the type of burglary
(e.g., nighttime residential burglars are often given more severe punishment
than other types of burglars). The average jail sentence imposed on these
offenders is 7 months, whereas convicted burglars get about 5 years for those
receiving prison sentences (State Court Statistics 2004). Unfortunately, the
power of prison sentences to deter convicted burglars from future crimes is
limited, especially given the statistics that about two-thirds of property
offenders commit a new criminal offense within two years of prison release.

The threat of imprisonment for committing burglary is also somewhat of an idle

threat and is not likely to deter other people who may be thinking about this
crime because (1) most burglars are not caught (14% clearance rate) and (2) less
than 30% of all arrested burglars are convicted and given a prison
sentence. Given high recidivism rates and low risks of punishment, criminal
sanctions may have only a small impact on reducing offender’s motivations
toward burglary and other property crimes.

An alternative strategy for reducing the prevalence of burglary is through direct

efforts at reducing physical opportunities for these
offenses. To achieve this goal, the strategy of Situational
Crime Prevention (SCP) has become a major framework
for crime control (for review of SCP, see Clarke, 1997;
Cornish and Clarke, 2003; Clarke and Eck, 2005). SCP is
based on the principles of various types of crime
opportunity theories (e.g., theories of routine activities,
rational choice; environmental design) to prevent the

Criminology Chapter 23: Residential/Non-Residential Burglary

occurrence of crimes. As described by Clarke and Eck (2005), SCP reduces both
criminal opportunities and offender motivations by focusing on the following
factors:

• Increasing the effort for offenders to commit crimes (e.g., by making it

more difficult to commit the crime [called target hardening], controlling
access to facilities, screening exits).
• Increasing their risks of getting caught (e.g., extending guardianship,
assisting natural surveillance, strengthening formal surveillance of people
and places).
• Reducing the rewards for crime (e.g., concealing targets, removing
targets, placing ID numbers on property so it makes it more difficult to
pawn/fence).
• Reducing provocations (e.g., reducing people’s frustrations and stress,
avoiding disputes, reducing emotional arousal).
• Removing excuses (for example, posting instructions for particular
activities, controlling drugs and alcohol.
Given that both rational planning and chance opportunities guide burglars’
behavior, the application of SCP principles should reduce the prevalence of these
property crimes. For opportunistic offenders, SCP efforts can dramatically
reduce these opportunities for quick, easy, and relatively lucrative rewards. For
more rational offenders, the greater risks of detection and apprehension may
convince potential burglars that committing these crimes at this particular place
or time is not an attractive choice/option.

Watch Video Crim41:

Situational Crime Prevention

Criminology Chapter 23: Residential/Non-Residential Burglary

Application Questions:

1. Why is residential burglary at nighttime considered a more serious criminal

offense than residential burglary during the daytime hours?

2. Think of some possible ways in which a slight change in the definition of

burglary may affect estimates of the prevalence of burglary in both official
crime data and victimization surveys.

3. Why are the risks of burglary about 3 times higher for persons under 20
years old than persons over 65 years old?

4. What are the primary offense elements associated with residential

burglary?

5. List the most effective strategies involving situational crime prevention

that would reduce the motivations and criminal opportunities for non-
residential burglaries at nighttime?

Criminology Chapter 24: Motor Vehicle Theft

Chapter 24:
Motor Vehicle Theft

Objectives:

• Know what is included and excluded under the FBI's definition of motor
vehicle theft.

• Know how motor vehicle theft rates in the U.S. have changed over the last
50 years.

• Identify the primary offender, victim, offense, and situational attributes

associated with motor vehicle theft.

• Know how technological changes have affected the nature of auto theft
and its prevalence.

Motor vehicle theft involves the theft or attempted theft of a self-propelled,

motorized vehicle that runs on land surfaces (UCR 2011). Automobiles, trucks,
buses, and motorcycles are the primary vehicles within this crime category.
Mopeds (i.e., motorized bicycles) are also included as motorized vehicles, but
foot-powered bicycles are not. The FBI also specifically excludes thefts of
motorboats, construction equipment, airplanes, and farming equipment from
the category of motor vehicle theft. The theft of motor vehicle parts and
accessories are also excluded and are classified in UCR data as larceny-
theft. Under the hierarchical rule, carjacking (i.e., the theft of motorized vehicles
by force) are not counted as motor vehicle thefts. Instead, depending upon the
nature of these crimes and the victim’s injury, carjacking may be coded as
robberies, aggravated assaults, or felony murder.

The primary source of confusion

in the classification of motor
vehicle thefts involves cases of
temporary “borrowing” of one’s
motorized vehicle by relatives
and friends. Technically,
whenever a motorized vehicle is
taken without the owner’s

Criminology Chapter 24: Motor Vehicle Theft

permission, a motor vehicle theft

occurs. However, the police will rarely
become aware of these incidents
because the victim and offender often
handle them informally. There is also
some definitional ambiguity in recording
cases of “attempted” motor vehicle
theft. In particular, if a car theft is
thwarted in progress by alarms or
bystanders, it is often unclear whether
the offender’s intent is to steal the vehicle (an attempted motor vehicle theft) or
accessories within the vehicle (which would qualify as only a larceny-theft). In
these situations, different police departments may code/record these attempts
differently.

1. The Prevalence/Distribution of Motor Vehicle Theft

Based on UCR data over the last 60 years, estimates of offense rates for motor
vehicle theft in the U.S. have vacillated considerably over time. These offense
rates generally increased from the early 1960s until 1991 and have generally
decreased since that time. The motor vehicle theft rate of 220 per 100,000 in
2019 represents one of the lowest rates in the U.S. since 1964. There were about
722,000 auto thefts known to the police in 2019 (UCR 2019). This translates into
a theft of a motorized vehicle being committed and known to the police every 42
seconds. The decline in the offense rate for motor vehicle theft since 1991 is also
found in NCVS estimates of vehicle theft victimization rates. These national
victimization data (see graph below) indicate that the auto theft victimization
rates in the U.S. have dropped from about 22 per 1,000 households in 1991 to
about 5 per 1,000 households in 2011.

Motor Vehicle Theft Rates per 100k

(UCR 1960-2019)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Criminology Chapter 24: Motor Vehicle Theft

Motor Vehicle Theft Victimization Rates per 100k

(NCVS 1993-2019)
25

0
1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017

Offense rates for motor vehicle theft vary widely across different types of
geographical areas. National data on known offenses (UCR 2019) reveal several
substantial differences in motor vehicle theft rates by the following geographical
classifications:

• Auto theft rates are significantly higher in Western states than other
regions of the country. These rates are also far below the national
average of 220 per 100,000 in the Northeast. The complete regional
rankings (and their auto theft rates for 2019) are: (1) West (333 per
100k), (2) South (223), (3) Midwest (190), and (4) Northeast (91 per
100k). The top 5 states based on the auto theft rates are all in the
Western region and are ordered in the following sequence: New Mexico,
Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, and Oregon.

• Large metropolitan areas (cities with > 250,000 population) have higher
motor vehicle theft rates than smaller cities (< 250,000 population) and
rural areas.

2. Offender Characteristics

Persons arrested for motor vehicle theft have a demographic profile similar to
other offenders. Arrested auto thieves are disproportionately male, young, and
African American.

Based on arrest data (UCR 2019), males represent about 77% of those arrested
for auto theft. Over one-third (38%) of the arrested auto thieves were under 25

Criminology Chapter 24: Motor Vehicle Theft

years old and about one-fifth (17%) were juveniles under 18. African Americans
accounted for about 29% of arrested auto thieves, a rate that is more than
double their proportional distribution in the general U.S. population.

The demographic pattern of persons arrested for auto theft has changed
markedly over the last 50 years for most of these social groups. For example, the
proportion of auto theft arrests involving female offenders has increased from
about 4% in the early 1960s to about 23% in 2019. The proportion of motor
vehicle arrests for persons over 25 years old has more than quadrupled over this
time period (from around 12% in 1962 to 62% in 2019), whereas juvenile arrests
for this crime have decreased dramatically over this time period (from 63% to
17%). The racial composition of auto theft arrestees has only changed slightly
over time--for example, 25% of these arrestees were African Americans in 1962
compared to 29% in 2019.

Motor vehicle thieves have diverse criminal records. Some (like joyriders) appear
to have limited criminal records. Others have extensive records that exhibit
some pattern of specialization, but the vast majority of auto thieves are
generalists who engage in a wide variety of different types of criminal behavior
over their careers. In their study of paroled auto thieves, Miethe, Olson, and
Mitchell (2006) found that nearly two-thirds of imprisoned auto thieves had no
other charge for auto theft in their criminal history. In contrast, other
researchers have found that auto thieves are among the offenders who are most
likely to specialize (Blumstein et al. 1988).

Watch Video Crim42:

Group Context for Joyriding

Both instrumental planning and chance opportunities underlie offenders’ actions

in motor vehicle theft. For professional thieves, there is a strong financial motive
for these crimes and they select particular vehicles that offer the maximum
profit (when they are fenced or “chopped” for parts) and minimum risks of
detection. In contrast, joyriders (usually young males who take cars for
temporary transportation) are less rational and/or calculated in their target-
selection decisions. Instead, these offenders are more representative of
situational opportunists who, on a whim and with encouragement from peers,
steal vehicles that are easily accessible, visible, and require little sophistication in
committing the crime. For these offenders, persons who leave their keys in their
ignition or their cars running while they go inside for a quick errand are primary
targets for auto theft.

Criminology Chapter 24: Motor Vehicle Theft

Some of the psychic/intrinsic rewards for stealing cars by these situational

opportunists involve:

(1) the cheap thrills/excitement from doing these spontaneous/impulsive

acts and
(2) feelings of self-enhancement that derive from showing peers of one’s
bravado/courage.

3. Victim Characteristics

Based on NCVS data, less than 1% of American households are victimized by a

motor vehicle theft in any given year. These victimizations occurred at a rate of
about 4 per 1,000 households in 2019. However, these rates varied by the
following characteristics of the household (see Table 24.1):

• Male-headed households have slightly higher victimization rates for

motor vehicle theft than female-headed households.

• Black-headed households have higher rates of motor vehicle theft

victimization than White-headed households.

• Hispanic-headed households have higher rates of motor vehicle theft

victimization than non-Hispanic households.

• Households headed by persons aged 20-34 years old have a victimization

rate for auto theft that is about 4 times higher than the rate for
households headed by persons age 65 or older (7.5 vs. 1.9 per 1000
households). These victimization rates decrease with increases in the age
of the household head.

Higher rates of auto theft for young adults are also found when these
rates per 1000 are computed on the basis of the number of vehicles
owned by each age group. So, even when you adjust for the differential
opportunities to own automobiles by age, younger adults still have higher
risks of victimization from these crimes.

• Households with household income less than $15,000 have higher risks of
auto theft than any other income group.

• Households with 6 or more members have a far higher risks of auto theft
than households with fewer members.

• Households in urban areas have a greater risk of motor vehicle theft

victimization than households in suburban and rural areas

Criminology Chapter 24: Motor Vehicle Theft

Table 24.1: Motor Vehicle Theft Victimization Rates by Victim Attributes

Victim Motor Vehicle Victim Motor Vehicle
Characteristics Theft Characteristic Theft
Total All Households 3.9 3.9

Gender: Income:
Male 4.3 < $ 7.5k 6.3
Female 3.5 $ 7.5k - $ 15k 7.9
$ 15k -$ 25k 5.7
$ 25k- $ 35k 3.4
$ 35k - $ 50k 4.6
$ 50k- $ 75k 4.1
> $ 75k 3.3

Race: Household Size:

White 3.6 1 person 2.3
Black 5.6 2-3 people 4.5
Other 4.6 4-5 people 4.9
6 or more 9.5

Ethnicity: Population Area:

Hispanic 6.5 Urban 6.1
Non-Hispanic 3.3 Suburban 3.6
Rural 2.1

Age:
18-19 5.9
20-34 7.5
35-49 3.4
50-64 3.2
65 + 1.9

Source: NCVS Victimization Analysis Tool ([Link]).2019

4. Offense Attributes

Different types of motor vehicle theft are distinguished in UCR data on the basis
of the type of vehicle. Other characteristics of these offenses (e.g., most popular
types of cars stolen, time of day, the average dollar loss, whether the theft was

Criminology Chapter 24: Motor Vehicle Theft

completed or not, reporting rates) can also be identified from national and local
police data, victimization surveys, and other data sources.

According to national police data (UCR 2019), three-fourths (75%) of motor

vehicle thefts involve automobiles. The remaining thefts were trucks and buses
(14%) and “other” vehicles (11%). The average economic loss per theft was
about $8800.

Victimization data (NCVS 2019) indicates that the typical motor vehicle theft was
completed (80%) rather than just attempted (20%). Most auto thefts occurred in
nighttime hours (70%), especially between the hours of midnight and 6:00am
(43% of all thefts occurred in this 6 hour period). More than half (54%) of these
thefts took place at the victim’s home or the street near it. The vast majority
(62%) of victims were asleep or involved in other activities inside their home
when their vehicles were stolen. About 80% of the victims report the theft of
their motor vehicles to the police (NCVS 2019).

Based on reports from the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB 2019), the
most commonly stolen vehicles in 2019 (and the frequently stolen year of
vehicle) are the following:

1. Ford F-Series Truck (2006)

2. Honda Civic (2000)
3. Chevrolet Silverado Truck (2004)
4. Honda Accord (1997)
5. Toyota Camry (2007)
6. Nissan Altima (2015)
7. Toyota Corolla (2018)
8. Dodge Ram Truck (2001)
9. GMC Sierra Truck (2018)
10. Honda CR-V (2001)

Watch Video Crim43:

Why are Particular Type of Cars Stolen?

Over the last decade, acts of carjacking (e.g., the theft of vehicles with force)
have received a greater deal of public attention. The emergence of carjacking as
a serious problem in large urban areas has been attributed to the rise in anti-
theft technology that has made it more difficult to steal unoccupied

Criminology Chapter 24: Motor Vehicle Theft

vehicles. Unfortunately, it is difficult to estimate the prevalence of these types

of offenses because they are not recorded directly in national police data (e.g.,
they are often counted as robberies under the hierarchical rule).

Based on the analysis of police descriptions of 241 carjacking in Las Vegas,

Miethe and Sousa (2009) have developed the following profile of the offender,
victim, and offense attributes underlying these violent types of auto thefts:

5. Prevention of Motor Vehicle Theft

The prevention and control of motor vehicle theft has focused primarily on
methods of situational crime prevention to reduce the opportunities for these
crimes. Included within this crime control framework includes various types of
target hardening activities (e.g., increases in car alarms/locks, ignition “kill”
switches, GIS tracking systems), the redesign of physical spaces where motor
vehicles are located (e.g., better lighting, security check points, speed inhibitors),
and enhancing public awareness of ways to decrease their risks of this type of
victimization.

Criminology Chapter 24: Motor Vehicle Theft

Application Questions:

1. What technological and social changes are possible explanations for the
decline in motor vehicle thefts in the U.S. over the last 20 years?

2. What are the primary motivations/reasons why people steal motor

vehicles and how have these reasons changed over time?

3. From a criminal opportunity perspective, what are the primary reasons

why Las Vegas has a very high rate of motor vehicle theft?

3. Give several reasons why particular types of vehicles (e.g., Hondas,

Toyotas, Ford pickups) are the most commonly stolen vehicles.

Criminology Chapter 25: White Collar Crime

Chapter 25:
White Collar Crime (Occupational and Organizational Crime)

Objectives:

• Know the primary difference between occupational and organizational

crime.

• Identify the characteristics of white-collar crime that are relatively unique

compared to "street-level" crimes.

• Know the general trends in the estimates of the prevalence of various

types of white-collar crimes and the profile of persons arrested for these
crimes.

• Identify the various approaches used to prevent and control white-collar

crime.

As developed by Edwin Sutherland

(1940), the term “white collar crime”
refers to crimes committed by persons
of respectability and high social status
in the course of their
occupations. Others (e.g., Coleman
[1985], Simon [1999]) have called
these crimes forms of “elite deviance”
to further convey the idea of the
offender’s lofty social position.

Rather than focusing on the social status of the offender (like business execs,
managers, etc.), many definitions of these crimes now emphasize the specific
type of criminal behavior. Under this act-focused definition, the following
criminal acts are clear examples of “white collar” crimes: bribery of public

Criminology Chapter 25: White Collar Crime

officials, security violations, insider trading, embezzlement, stock/investment

fraud, price fixing and other types of collusion.

Several other factors are common elements in most current definitions of “white
collar crime”:

• These crimes involve a violation of trust and/or abuse of power. A maid

service employee who pockets some of your valuables is violating this
trust and so is the telemarketer who asks for personal information and
then uses it against you in a consumer fraud scheme. Likewise, the
mortgage company or CEO that defrauds consumers and the elected
public official who accepts bribes/kickbacks are also violating this trust.

• Regardless of their particular social status, anyone can commit illegal acts
of fraud or deception within the context of one’s employment. For
example, everyone can cheat on income taxes and all employees have
the opportunity to steal from their employer. Both “blue collar” (i.e.,
laborers) and “white collar” (i.e., the “suits”, “management”) can commit
these crimes.

• These crimes most often occur during the course of a legitimate

occupational activity and can be committed by an individual or a
corporate entity. Cases of computer hacking, identity theft, and other
types of consumer frauds may not occur within one’s occupation per se,
but they are considered “white collar” offenses because they involve
planned/organized illegal acts of deception and/or fraud.

• When these crimes are motivated by personal gains, they are often called
“occupational crimes”. When these crimes are committed to
enhance/promote the interests of the company/business itself, they are
called “corporate crime” or “organizational crimes”.

1. Types of White Collar Crime

There are various ways to classify different types of occupational and

organizational crimes. You can classify them according to the characteristics of
their offenders (e.g., corporations, professionals, managers, citizens), the nature
of the harm (e.g., economic, physical, moral harm), the type of offense (e.g.,
stings/swindles, chiseling, influence peddling, employee fraud), or by the type of
victims (e.g., owners, employees, government, consumers, the environment). An
example of a victim-based typology of white crime crimes is presented below.

Criminology Chapter 25: White Collar Crime

2. The Extent and Distribution of White Collar Crimes Over Time

Several organizations provide national estimates of the extent and distribution of

particular types of white-collar crime over time. For example, the FBI’s Uniform
Crime Reports (UCR) include annual estimates of the number of arrests for
embezzlement, forgery and counterfeiting, and fraud. Over the last several
years, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) has begun to provide
estimates of the proportion of U.S. households that have experienced an act of
identity theft. Similarly, the National White Collar Crime Center (NWCC) has
conducted several public surveys on victimization by these crimes. The Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) also collects information on consumer complaints and
provides another source of data on types of identity theft. Federal court data are
also available on convictions for various types of occupational and organizational
crimes.

Similar to other types of crime data, national estimates of the extent and
distribution of white-collar crime are plagued by numerous problems
surrounding the representativeness of the samples and the validity/reliability of
the results. In the case of public surveys on consumer fraud and identity theft,
for example, many consumers are simply unaware of their victimization by these
crimes. Federal data on complaints or convictions are equally problematic
because only a small but unknown proportion of these offenses come to the
attention of regulatory agencies. UCR data has a similar problem with the “dark
figures” (i.e., the gap between the true and reported number of offenses) and
has the additional problem of unreliability in recording such acts as “fraud” and
“embezzlement” (e.g., some jurisdictions may count them as a larceny/theft [a
Part I Offense], whereas other agencies may employ different practices).

Given these problems with the existing data, any estimates about the prevalence
and nature of white-collar crime in the U.S. should be viewed with a great deal of
caution. With this caveat in mind, here’s some general statistics on the
prevalence of different types of white-collar crimes provided by various studies:

• About one fourth (24%) of

households and about one fifth
(17%) of individuals in a national
survey reported experiencing at
least one form of white-collar
victimization within the previous
year (NW3C 2010). The type of
offenses included in this survey
were product pricing fraud, credit card fraud, existing account fraud, new
account fraud, unnecessary object repair, unnecessary home repair, and

Criminology Chapter 25: White Collar Crime

losses occurring due to false stockbroker information, fraudulent

business ventures, and internet/email frauds.

• About one fourth (23%) of U.S. households in 2007 experienced one or

more types of identity theft (NCVS 2005). A more recent NCVS survey
indicates that 10% of persons over 16 years old were victims of identity
theft in the prior 12 months (Harrell, 2019). The most common type of
identity theft reported in this victimization survey involved credit card
fraud (i.e., the unauthorized use or attempted use of existing credit
cards).

• Nearly 314,000 consumer complaints for identity theft were received by

the FTC in 2008. Credit card fraud (20% of complaints) was the most
common type of reported identity theft, followed by government
documents/benefits fraud (15%), employment-related fraud (15%),
phone/utilities fraud (13%), bank fraud
(11%), and loan fraud (4%). For the ninth
year in a row, identity theft was the single
most common type of consumer complaint
(FTC 2008).

• An estimated 126,000 persons were

arrested for fraud or embezzlement in the
U.S. in 2019 (UCR 2019). There were only
about 36,000 arrests for these offenses in
1962 (UCR 1962)

• The annual estimated costs of cybercrime and economic espionage to the

world economy is more than $445 billion—almost 1 percent of the global
income (Nakashima and Peterson 2014).

• Economic losses from anti-trust violations (e.g., price fixing, illegal

mergers/acquisitions, unfair competition) exceed $350 billion per year
(Coleman 1995).

• Medical errors are the cause of death for more than 250,00 people in the
U.S. annually (Sipherd 2018).

• More than 100,000 deaths per year are attributed to unsafe products and
unsafe production techniques (Miethe et al. 2006).

Criminology Chapter 25: White Collar Crime

3. Offender Characteristics
Offenders of white-collar crimes may be either individuals or organizations.
Studies of corporate crime indicate major differences in offending for profit-
seeking private organizations and non-profit organizations. In particular, private
industry is far more commonly involved in price-fixing, consumer fraud, false
advertising, deceptive sales practices, stock fraud, and other types of
organizational crime because these activities are driven by profit motives
(Coleman 2002). Among for-profit organizations, companies with more volatile
market positions and less liquidity of assets are more susceptible to corporate
crime (see Clinard and Yeager 1980).

Based on arrest data (UCR 2019), persons over 25 years old account for the
majority of arrestees for fraud (78%) and embezzlement (67%). Over half (64%)
of fraud arrestees are males, whereas females account for one half (50%) of
arrested embezzlers. About two thirds of arrestees for fraud (66%) and
embezzlement (61%) are White. Among embezzlers, the higher proportion of
arrests for female and older persons is often explained by the greater planning
and access to business operations required for these crimes (Albanese 1995).
Contrary to their image as rich/powerful offenders, most convicted white-collar
offenders are best described as middle class persons (see Weisburd et al 1991;
Weisburd, Waring, and Chayet 2001). These offenders are more likely than
conventional property offenders (e.g., burglars) to be older, employed, better
educated, homeowners, and have less extensive records of prior criminal activity
or drug abuse.

4. Victim Attributes

The risk of personal victimization from white-collar crimes appears to vary by

location and the demographic characteristics of its target. Based on data from
the Federal Trade Commission on identity theft complaints (FTC 2019),
victimization rates for identity theft are highest in Western states (especially
Nevada and California) and lowest in the Northeast (e.g., Vermont,
Maine). Victimization risks for identity theft are only slighter higher for younger
(<25) than older persons (>25), Whites than Blacks, and for urban than rural
residents (NCVS 2006).

According to FTC data, younger adults are likely to lose money to fraud than
other age groups, but when older people experience a fraud-related financial
loss, the average amount of the loss is much higher (e.g., about $1700 per
incident for persons over 80 compared about $300 per incident for persons
under 30 years old).

Criminology Chapter 25: White Collar Crime

Household Head Characteristics % Households Identity Theft

1. Age Differences
18-24 yrs old 7
25-34 yrs old 6
50-64 yrs old 6
65 and over 3

2. Racial Differences
Black 5
White 6

3. Ethnicity Differences
Hispanic 4
Non-Hispanic 6

4. Regional Differences
Northeast 5
Midwest 5
South 5
West 7

5. Location of Residence
Urban 6
Suburban 6
Rural 4

Source: NCVS (2006) [Baum 2007]

In addition to these factors, the risks of victimization by identity theft also varied
by household income. About 10% of the households with an income of over
$75,000 experienced identity theft compared to about 5% of those with income
less than $7,500. The average amount of financial loss due to identity theft was
an estimated $1,600. The median loss was $300, meaning one-half of the victims
lost more than this amount and one-half lost less than $300. About 5% of the
victimized households lost over $5,000 from identity theft (NCVS 2006).

Criminology Chapter 25: White Collar Crime

5. Theories of White-Collar Crime Offending

The etiology and epidemiology of white-collar crime has been explained by a

variety of theories. According to class/conflict theories, the profit-driven
mentality of capitalistic countries is the fuel that underlies corporate crime in
America. Robert Merton’s anomie theory suggests that the overemphasis on
material success and the limited legitimate opportunities to achieve this goal are
the cultural and structural conditions that lead to various types of occupational
and organizational crime.

For explaining individual’s criminality, Donald Cressey applied Sutherland’s

differential association theory to embezzler’s criminal activity. Sykes and
Matza’s ideas about the “techniques of neutralization” have also been widely
used to explain white-collar offender’s cognitive rationalizations for their
behavior. Common neutralizations/justifications for their criminal behavior
include (1) denial of injury (e.g., “it’s no big deal”--they have plenty of money),
(2) denial of victim (e.g., the victim was greedy--caveat emptor), and (3)
condemnation of the condemners (e.g. everyone else is doing it--why can’t I do
it?).

Criminal opportunity theories help explain how the nature of white-collar crime
activities has changed over time. For example, technology has produced new
opportunities for white-collar crimes (e.g., financial fraud, internet/computer
hacking) by increasing the visibility and accessibility of one’s financial resources
to victimization. Decreasing these emerging opportunities for crime is one of the
basic solutions to crime that is provided by these criminal opportunity theories.

6. Classic Types and Cases of White Collar Crime

There are various types of scams/swindles and classic cases of white-collar crime
because of the nature of the offenses and the persons/organizations
involved. Most high-profile cases are not representative of the typical offender,
victim, and situational context in which these crimes occur, but they do provide a
general idea of the diversity of white-collar crimes and how they differ from the
traditional crimes that included in the FBI’s Index Crimes.

a. Types of White Collar Crime Scams:

• Telecommunications fraud includes such activities as stealing telephone

access codes or stealing cellular phone numbers and then using these
stolen codes to make millions of dollars in illegal calls (Simon and Hagan
1999:78).

Criminology Chapter 25: White Collar Crime

• “Data diddlers” engage in computer-assisted embezzlement by

manipulating the information fed into computers for their advantage.
Funds intended for deposit in one account are credited to different
accounts controlled by the criminals (Coleman 1994).

• Secret files or “Trojan horses” are used by computer programmers to

make fraudulent electronic transfers, erase personal debts, or discover
confidential information without detection (Coleman 1994).

• “Telemarketing” scams entice consumers to buy into worthless

investments. Some recent telemarketing schemes include “cash loans,” in
which callers are charged $49 for a generic information package on how
to apply for bank loans; “one-shot” credit cards in which callers pay a fee
for a card that turns out to be usable only once; bogus health products
such as water purifiers; and “blind pool” penny stock offerings based on
misleading information about new small companies (Blake 1996).

• Under the illegal activity of “loss dumping,” a stockbroker buys stock

options without attaching the customer account numbers. Those trades
with declining value are dumped into family trust accounts, and the
profitable investments/ventures are credited to the stockbroker's
account and the accounts of other brokers (Simon and Hagan 1999:82).

• “Overutilization” (i.e., the billing for superfluous and unnecessary tests

and other services) is done by medical professionals and other service
providers. Specific forms of medical fraud include “ping-ponging”
(referring patients to several different practitioners when their symptoms
do not warrant such referrals), “family ganging” (extending several
unnecessary services to all members of a patient's family), “fee-splitting”
(sending patients to surgeons who will split the largest fee rather than to
those who will do the best work), “steering” (directing patients to clinics'
pharmacies to fill unneeded prescriptions), and “upgrading” (billing for
services more extensive than those actually performed) (Friedrichs 2004;
Pontell, Jesilow, and Geis 1982).

b. Classic Cases of White Collar Crime:

• Bernard Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison by a U.S. District
Court in June of 2009 for running a massive Ponzi scheme since the early
1990s. This multibillon-dollar fraud involved thousands of victims (e.g.,
private citizens who lost their life savings, charities, other financial
institutions). Madoff's financial frauds have been estimated to involve
anywhere between $13 and $50 billion.

Criminology Chapter 25: White Collar Crime

• Massive leaks of toxic chemicals from an old dumping ground in Love

Canal, New York, forced 239 families to evacuate and demolish their
homes. Another 311 homes have also been condemned. The disaster cost
American taxpayers about $200 million. Lawsuits against the chemical
company worth $15 billion are pending in the courts (Coleman 1994:80-
81).
• Ford Pintos produced between 1971 and 1976 were recalled for repair of
a defective gas tank that exploded upon low- to moderate-speed rear-
end collisions. Ford denied allegations that it was aware of the defect in
early crash tests but failed to make changes for financial reasons. Dozens
of lawsuits have been filed, some resulting in multi-million-dollar
judgments, and more than 50 people are believed to have died as a direct
result of ruptured gas tanks (Coleman 1994:83-84).

Watch Video Crim44:

The Ford Pinto Case

• Three Archer-Daniels-Midland executives were charged with conspiring

to fix worldwide prices for livestock feed. While the executives faced trial
in 1998, the company had already agreed to pay $100 million in fines, the
largest criminal anti-trust fine in history (Jones 1997:1).
• H. Robbins was accused of knowingly misrepresenting the nature, quality,
safety, and efficacy of the Dalkon Shield, an intrauterine birth-control
device. At least 17 women have died and as many as 200,000 more have
been injured by complications involving the Dalkon Shield. By 1995,
Robbins paid out more than $378 million to settle 9,200 lawsuits from
victims.
• Bankruptcy postponed
compensation for another
40,000 to 50,000 victims. A
federal court has accepted a plan
to reorganize Robbins that
includes the creation of a $2.5
billion fund to compensate the
victims of the Dalkon Shield
(Coleman 1994:86-87).

Criminology Chapter 25: White Collar Crime

• Dennis Levine, a highly placed merger and acquisitions specialist with the
Wall Street firm of Drexel Burnham Lambert, was charged with using
inside information to make $12 million in illegal profits and given a two-
year prison term.
• Ivan Boesky, who made huge profits from tips he received from Levine
and others, was fined $100 million and given a three-year prison
sentence. Subsequent investigations by the Securities and Exchange
Commission resulted in the indictment of more than 60 people in top
Wall Street firms, including Michael Milken, the billionaire junk bond king
(Coleman 1994:90-91).
• The virtual collapse of the savings and loan industry in the late 1980s is
often attributed to sharp increases in interest rates that made low-
interest, fixed-rate loans by thrifts increasingly unprofitable. Most of the
major losses and closures, however, were due to crimes and grossly
unethical conduct by top savings and loan executives. From 1988 to 1990,
a total of 21,147 written requests for investigations were filed with the
Justice Department for fraudulent savings and loan activity. This crisis is
expected to cost the government a total of $500 billion (Coleman
1994:91).
• Andrew Fastow, the Chief Financial Officer of Enron, and six associates
(who all worked or had spouses who worked for Enron) made over $45
million on investments while the company stock plummeted. All told,
stockholder losses reached over $60 billion dollars. The economic impact
of Enron is still being felt. Andrew Fastow is currently serving prison time
for his role in the offense and Kenneth Lay and Jeff Skilling (who
reportedly made $89 million when he sold he stocks) and others have
been indicted on numerous charges of fraud (McLean and Elkind 2004).

7. Controlling White Collar Crime

Efforts to control white-collar crime have focused on increasing the criminal

penalties for its offenders and reducing the opportunities for these
crimes. Specific measures for controlling these crimes include the following:

• Increasing consumer advocacy and awareness of white-collar

crimes. Many Americans are simply unaware of the various ways in which
they can be victimized by various types of financial fraud
schemes. Increasing public awareness should increase public protection
and decrease the opportunities for victimization.

• Greater security and tighter business controls. Many financial institutions

have now adopted tighter security measures to reduce the opportunities

Criminology Chapter 25: White Collar Crime

for victimization. This includes safeguards against employee theft (e.g.,

double security systems) and elaborate password systems to reduce the
chances of computer hacking.

• Increasing protection for whistleblowers and other employees who

report various kinds of fraud, waste and abuse on the job. These legal
protections include the passage of laws and civil remedies for employees
who are fired or victimized by retaliatory actions by their employees for
reporting these crimes to external agencies (Miethe et al 2006: 127).

• Increasing moral and ethical training of management on the job and

within educational institutions. It is the CEO of companies that set the
moral or ethical tone within their organizations. When management
takes an active and constructive approach to fraud/waste/abuse in their
workplace, they encourage other employees to behave in a similar way
(Miethe et al 2006: 127).

• Increase the certainty, severity, and swiftness of criminal punishments for

these crimes. Currently, most white-collar offenders are not caught and,
if they are, they are often treated informally within the
company/organization (e.g., fired, suspended, cease-desist orders,
reduced pay) rather than criminally prosecuted. Criminal prosecution is
rare in most of these cases because this type of publicity may erode
public confidence/trust in this business---the business tries to keep it “in
house” to prevent the loss of public funds.

The deterrent effect of criminal sanctions should work for most white-collar
offenders because their offenses are planned and calculated (Miethe et al 2006;
126). Unfortunately, the incapacitative and deterrent effects of imprisonment
for the typical white-collar offender are limited because they are often given
probation or suspended sentences. These sentences are common for white-
collar offenders because they don’t usually have a prior record and have stable
ties to the community---that is, they have the offense and social attributes that
are often thought to make these offenders good risks for probation.

Application Questions:

1. What is the primary difference between the two major types of white-
collar crimes (i.e., occupational crime vs. organizational crime)?

2. Give specific examples of how technological changes and innovations in

the last two decades have increased dramatically the criminal
opportunities for particular types of white-collar crimes?

Criminology Chapter 25: White Collar Crime

3. Why is increasing the moral and ethical training of managers and business
leaders an effective strategy for reducing white-collar crimes in the
workplace?

4. What are some specific examples of how increased consumer advocacy

and public awareness have reduced the criminal opportunities for
victimization by particular types of white-collar crimes?

Criminology Chapter 26: Organized Crime

Chapter 26:
Organized Crime

Objectives:

• Know the general types of illegal activities from which organized crime
has participated in throughout American history.

• Identify the types of legitimate businesses and industries that have

received investments or are now controlled by organized crime
syndicates.
• Know the structural characteristics of organized crime.

• Know the general history of the development of organized crime in the

United States.

• Describe the characteristics of the "New Mafia".

• Identify the major problems with efforts to control organized crime.

There are different types of criminal organizations

that are involved in illegal activities. Some of the
most widely noted criminal organizations include
street gangs in large U.S. cities, regional and
national hate groups, terrorist organizations, and
organized crime syndicates. These organized crime
syndicates are called by various generic names,
including “the mob”, “mafia”, and “cartels”. This
lecture focuses on the nature of these organized
crime syndicates and characteristics of their
structure, history, and current practices.

Organized crime involves large-scale organizations that operate like legitimate

businesses/organizations except for the fact that the goods/services they
provide and the means by which they conduct business are illegal. These
goods/services involve things that legitimate businesses are legally unable or

Criminology Chapter 26: Organized Crime

unwilling to provide to public consumers (e.g., illegal drugs, prostitution, stolen

goods). The primary means/method of doing business for organized crime
syndicates involves the use of force or its threat.

1. Types of Organized Crime Activities

Organized crime syndicates have been involved in a variety of illegal activities

throughout history. They have also used illegal profits to infiltrate legitimate
businesses. Primary illegal activities have included:

• the supply/distribution of illegal drugs (e.g., alcohol in the Prohibition era

by the Sicilian crime families [La Cosa Nostra]; cocaine through the
Columbian [Medellin, Cali] cartels; marijuana through the Mexican
mafia).

• gambling (e.g., illegal lotteries [“numbers” rackets], off-track betting).

• racketeering (i.e., extorting a fee from an unwilling victim through

intimidation, duress, and/or physical force)--example, “protection
rackets” involving selling the owner of a business/home “insurance” to
protect them from the racketeer doing damage to their property or body.

• prostitution (i.e., networks of call girls and street walkers that provide
sexual services).

• loan sharking (i.e., loaning

money at extremely high rates
by putting up your
property/body for collateral).

• fencing and organized theft

(i.e., the theft and sale of
stolen goods through national
and international markets).

Profits from illegal activities have also been the basis for organized crime
syndicate’s “investments” in legitimate businesses. Money laundering (i.e., the
taking of illegal profits and distributing them through legal businesses [like banks
and casinos] at reduced costs) is a common method used by crime syndicates.
Based on federal indictments in the mid 1980s of the heads of the five N.Y.
organized-crime families, the following industries have all been illegally
infiltrated by these crime syndicates:

Criminology Chapter 26: Organized Crime

• Trucking
• Air Freight
• Water Front-Cargo
• Restaurant Food Distribution
• Construction
• Entertainment
• Jewelry
• Garment
• Garbage/Waste Disposal
• Funeral Homes
• Real Estate
• Liquor
• Vending Machines
• Moving and Storage

The chief of the Justice Department’s organized-crime strike force in Brooklyn,

Ed McDonald, was quoted in the 1980s as saying “it is pretty hard to think of an
industry in New York that organized crime is not involved in”. It is widely
believed that organized crime is the “silent partner” in many businesses and
industries in most large cities across the country.

2. The Structure of Organized Crime

Organized crime syndicates vary widely in their structural characteristics. Some

of these criminal organizations are loosely coupled (i.e., they aren’t very
organized), whereas many of the most widely known groups like La Cosa Nostra
have a well-defined structure. The following structural features often
characterize the largest organized crime syndicates:

• A hierarchical structure involving a system of defined relationships with

mutual obligations and privileges. Roles within this pyramid-shaped
hierarchy reflect various levels of power and specialization. The typical
organized crime family involves in order of decreasing power the boss,
the underboss, lieutenants, soldiers, and associates.

• Continuity in the operation of the organized crime syndicate beyond the

lifetime of its individual members.

• Monopolistic control or the establishment of spheres of influence among

different organizations and over geographical areas (“turf”). Historically,
this monopolistic control often involved specialization in one or more
combinations of illegal enterprises. Contemporary crime syndicates (e.g.,
drug cartels) may also specialize in particular goods/services, but they
tend to be more versatile.

Criminology Chapter 26: Organized Crime

• Dependence upon the use of force and violence to maintain internal

discipline and restrain competition.

• Maintenance of permanent immunity from interference from law

enforcement and other governmental agencies. Political corruption is a
necessary part of organized crime.

Watch Video Crim47:

Media Images of Organized Crime

Given this organizational structure, these illegal business enterprises will

continue to flourish as long as they satisfy the public demand for contraband
(i.e., illegal goods/services) that legitimate businesses are legally unable or
ethically unwilling to provide. It is somewhat ironic that organized crime
demonstrates how standard cultural motives of maximizing returns, efficient
organizations, and skilled management operates for both legitimate and
illegitimate businesses.

3. The History of Organized Crime in the U.S.

The earliest forms of organized crime in the U.S. consisted of a group of Irish
immigrants that roamed the lower east side of Manhattan in the mid 1800s. This
group had an organization structure with particular roles (i.e., chiefs, lieutenants,
fixers/enforcers) and exhibited some specialization in mugging and pick
pocketing. The emergence of these groups in the “Hells Kitchen” neighborhood
of the greater N.Y. areas was epitomized in the movie “Gangs of New York”.
Italian immigrants began forming gangs in the 1890s modeled after the Sicilian
Crime Organization known as the Mafia. These organized groups moved from
New York to Chicago by the 1900s.

The major turning point for organized crime

in the U.S. was the onset of Prohibition (i.e.,
the banning of the production, importation,
and distribution of alcoholic beverages) by
the passage of the Volstead Act in
1919. This federal law was the major spark
for a tumultuous 15-year period of crime,
violence, and political corruption that
centered on providing illegal alcohol to the

Criminology Chapter 26: Organized Crime

drinking public. Basically, the Volstead Act created a multi-million dollar bootleg
alcohol industry. However, the problems with supplying liquor to thousands of
illegal drinking establishments (called “speakeasies”) required organization and
open-war between different groups ultimately subsided to achieve this collective
goal. Key activities in the emergence of organized crime syndicates that took
place during this Prohibition era included the following:

• Johnny Torrio became leader of the Unione Sicilano group, bringing

together criminal organizations in Chicago and New York. Since Torrio
was Italian, he also brought together Italians and Sicilians who previously
were in constant battle.

• “Gang” leaders across the country met in Cleveland in 1925 and Atlantic
City in 1929 for mediating their differences in a non-violent manner in
order to maximize their profits.

• A meeting in New York City in 1934, orchestrated by Johnny Torrio and

Lucky Luciano, led to the formation of a National Crime Commission. This
Commission acknowledged the territorial claims of 24 crime “families”
across the country. This meeting was the beginning of the La Cosa
Nostra.

Under the leadership of the National Crime Commission, organized crime

expanded across the country from coast to coast. However, the end of
Prohibition in 1933, the primary “cash cow” for organized crime, forced these
crime syndicates to seek new sources for profit. Some of these new markets
included the development of news services for national bookmaking (e.g., horse
racing) and the movement into legitimate business establishments.

After World War II in 1945, organized crime

families began using their profits from liquor,
gambling, and narcotics to buy legitimate
businesses in consumer-oriented
industries. These business ventures included the
purchase of entertainment clubs, legal gambling
casinos (e.g., in Cuba, Miami, Atlantic City, Las
Vegas), hotel chains, restaurants, and nightclubs.
By the 1950s, organized crime had infiltrated
unions and other business organizations.

A major event in the history of organized crime in the 1950s involved the U.S.
Senate’s establishment of the Kefauver Commission to investigate organized
crime. This Commission, named after Senator Estes Kefauver, reported about the
existence of a national crime cartel whose members cooperated to make a profit

Criminology Chapter 26: Organized Crime

and engaged in joint ventures to eliminate enemies/competition. They also

uncovered “Murder INC.”, the syndicate’s enforcement branch that permanently
disposed of any sources of opposition or competition.

The Kefauver Commission also found that corruption and bribery of local political
officials was widespread. A Senate Subcommittee on Investigations also
examined the role of organized crime in labor racketeering. This committee and
its chief counsel, Robert Kennedy, uncovered a close relationship between
organized gang activity and the U.S. Teamster’s Union led by Jimmy
Hoffa. Hoffa’s assumed death has been linked to his gangland connections.

During the period from the 1960s to the 1980s, organized crime moved into a
diverse array of legitimate business activities (e.g., banking, trucking, illegal
funds investment, real estate, other service industries). These activities have
continued in the 21st century.

4. The “New” Mafia in Contemporary American Society

Aside from its movement into legitimate businesses, another major change in
organized crime involves its ethnic/racial composition. This change is called the
“new” mafia and reflects a period of wider ethnic and racial diversity in
organized crime syndicates. As discussed in the previous section on history,
organized crime in the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was
primarily linked to persons of Irish, Italian, and Sicilian descent. However, in the
last half-century, the following ethnic/racial groups and geographical regions
have established their own crime syndicates:

• Russian Mafia
• Mexican Mafia
• Dixie Mafia
• Japanese Yakusa
• Columbian Cartels (Medellin, Cali)
• Jamaican Posse

According to Ianni (1974), most of the ethnic/racial mix in organized crime has
occurred at the lower-level “street” activities. For example, Black and Hispanic
groups now oversee the distribution of drugs, prostitution, and gambling in the
Northeast, Chicago, and Miami. Similarly, the Mexican mafia controls the drug
supply through the Southwest. The traditional Italian/Sicilian crime “families”
have moved from the streets into legitimate business ventures.

Criminology Chapter 26: Organized Crime

In order to gain the same level of control over markets that was achieved by La
Cosa Nostra, Ianni (1974) argued that the new mafia requires the following: (1)
an organizing principle which serves an equivalent role as family or kinship bonds
that tie disparate groups together into a larger monopolistic organization and (2)
better access to political power and the ability to corrupt it.

5. Controlling Organized Crime

Efforts to control organized crime in the U.S. have achieved little success
throughout American history. The failure of these efforts has been attributed to
several factors: (1) a fragmented criminal justice system and the diffusion of
responsibility for dealing with the problem (e.g., states blame local jurisdictions,
locals blame the state, and both blame the federal agencies/government), (2)
inadequate intelligence on organized crime activities, (3) political interference
and corruption, and (4) a general lack of concern to eliminate this activity. This
apparent apathy toward organized crime stems in a large part from the public’s
willingness to purchase these illegal goods/services. Without doing something
about this demand-side, organized crime will continue as a lucrative business
activity.

The primary response to organized crime from state and federal law
enforcement involves the passage of RICO laws (RICO stands for Racketeering
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations). As a tool for reducing money laundering,
RICO laws have special provisions for asset forfeiture for legal businesses that
are engaged in these unlawful practices. While RICO laws have lead to the
conviction of members of organized crime syndicates, the survival of these
criminal organizations goes beyond the lifetime of any individual within
them. The successive replacement of the heads of organized crime syndicates
through death or imprisonment has had no discernable impact on reducing the
prevalence of organized crime activities in the U.S.

Watch Video Crim48:

Legalization and Organized Crime Markets

Criminology Chapter 26: Organized Crime

Application Questions:

1. What is organized crime and how does it differ from other types of criminal
activity?

2. What elements of the structure of organized crime syndicates make it

especially effective as a business?

3. Why is Prohibition considered the single, most important event in the

emergence of organized crime in America?

4. What characteristics of their organization and organizing principles are

necessary for the "new mafia" groups to thrive in contemporary American
society?

5. What are the two primary factors that contribute to the persistence of
organized crime in American society? Why are these factors so important
for the existence of organized crime?

Criminology Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

Chapter 27:
Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

Objectives:

• Know the different types of criminal sanctions (i.e., economic,

incapacitative, and corporal punishments) and the particular forms of
punishments within them.

• Identify the major properties of the dominant philosophies for criminal

punishments (i.e., retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, and
rehabilitation).

• Know the general trends in punishment over American history.

All societies use some form of

punishment to control crime and
deviance within its boundaries. Criminal
sanctions for illegal activity serve to
reinforce cherished values and beliefs,
incapacitate and deter those who are
thinking about criminal misconduct, and
often function to maintain power
relations in a society and to eliminate
threats to the prevailing social order
(Miethe and Lu 2005:1).

Civil and administrative sanctions are

also used to maintain social order, especially in more heterogeneous societies.
Aside from their other functions, criminal punishments may also have further
instrumental and symbolic value in that they may serve to dramatize the evil of
particular conduct in a society, enhance communal solidarity against external
threats, and provide the means for social engineering efforts directed at
improving the quality of life (Miethe and Lu 2005:1).

Criminology Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

1. Types of Criminal Sanctions

As a response to crime, all societies use one or more of the following types of
criminal sanctions:

• Economic Punishments that involve direct financial consequences to

offenders.

• Incapacitative Sanctions that physically restrain behavioral patterns.

• Corporal Punishments that involve death or physical suffering through

the direct application of physical force on the human body.

The nature of specific punishments within these general categories is highlighted

below.

a. Economic Sanctions

Serving the purposes of retribution, deterrence and/or restorative justice,

economic sanctions involve any type of financial penalties that are imposed for
wrongdoing. For many types of corporate and white collar crimes (e.g.,
embezzlement, inside trading, investment frauds), large economic fines are often
considered "just" punishments for these crimes/criminals because it sanctions
them "in kind" -- they commit the crimes for money, so make them pay
financially for their wrongdoing.

Within the U.S. criminal justice system, monetary fines are the typical sanctions
for traffic violations and less serious criminal offenses (e.g., disorderly conduct,
petty theft). A particular monetary amount can also be paid in exchange for a jail
or prison sentences for particular offenses (e.g., for drunk driving, a person may
sometimes pay a fine instead of going to jail). Fines are often imposed in
addition to other sentences as well (e.g., getting a 1-day jail sentence and $500
fine public drunkenness). For various types of corporate/organizational crime
(e.g., regulatory violations, anti-trust cases), civil sanctions like injunctions, cease
and desist orders, revocations of licenses, and suspensions are another type of
economic punishment because these penalties ultimately affect the economic
well-being of the violators (Miethe and Lu 2005).

As a particular type of economic sanction, asset forfeiture is used in the U.S.

primarily for the prosecution of drug offenders and organized crime syndicates.
Under both federal and state laws, a person’s property can be seized and their
assets forfeited to the government if they were involved in a criminal enterprise

Criminology Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

and that property was purchased or received from their material participation in
this criminal enterprise (see Miethe and Lu 2005). One common situation for
asset forfeiture involves the money laundering of profits from illegal activities
(e.g., drug trafficking, off-track betting) through otherwise legitimate financial
institutions--in these cases, the U.S. government can seize any assets (e.g.,
money, buildings, airplanes, cars) that derive from these illegal transactions.

b. Incapacitative Sanctions

Incapacitative sanctions are criminal punishments imposed on individuals to

place limits on their physical opportunities for unacceptable behavior.
Throughout history, numerous devices, techniques, and physical structures have
been employed throughout history for purposes of incapacitation. As described
by Miethe and Lu (2005:30-33), these methods have included the following:

• Banishment/exile/deportation. For over 200 years, England used

“transportation” to its colonies as a means of banishing felons and other
“rogues, vagabonds, and beggars” from its homeland (see Miethe and Lu
2005:31). Deportation of illegal aliens who have come into contact with
law enforcement officials is the most recent form of these incapacitative
sanctions.

• Physical restraints on the body. These devices were often used for both
purposes of incapacitation and corporal punishment. These restraints
included confinement in chains, stocks (i.e. a wooden frame that binds
the person’s hands and feet in a locked position), and yokes around the
person’s neck. The pillory (i.e., a device that locked a person's head and
hands) was more notorious for exacting physical pain, often involving the
nailing of the person’s ears to the wooden blocks. In contemporary
American society, electronic monitoring through ankle bracelets,
handcuffs, and fingercuffs are types of physical restraints that are less
injurious to the recipient (Miethe and Lu 2005: 31-32).

• Incapacitative structures. At various times and in different countries,

physical structures for incapacitation have been described by the
following terms: dungeons, gaols (i.e., jails), towers, hulks (i.e.,
abandoned ships), workhouses, penitentiaries, prisons, reformatories,
labor camps, centers and cottages, halfway houses, sanitariums, mental
institutions/hospitals, correctional facilities, and therapeutic
“communities” (Miethe and Lu 2005: 32). Incapacitation in jails in the
U.S. is limited to misdemeanors and felony sentences of less than 1 year,
whereas prison confinement is for a longer period of time.

Criminology Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

• Short-term incapacitation and probation. Shock incarceration (i.e., "scared

straight" programs) is a temporary incapacitation program in which the
convicted offender is given a brief period of confinement in an institution
(e.g., 1 day to 1 week) and then released back to the community (Miethe
and Lu 2005: 33). A separate type of incapacitative sanction within this
category involves supervised probation (i.e., the monitoring of offenders
within the community by legal officials such as police, correctional
officers, probation officers). Supervised probation is a type of
incapacitative sanction because it involves conditions of confinement
placed on the probationer's body (e.g., restrictions on contact with
particular people, restrictions on travel, mandatory curfews, prohibitions
against alcohol and substance use).

When compared to other countries, the available data suggests that the U.S. has
the highest rates of incarceration in the world (see Table 27.1). Among the
specific world regions, the countries with the highest incarceration rates include
the following: The United States for the Americas, Russian Federation for
Europe, St. Kitts and Nevis for the Caribbean, Rwanda for Africa, Thailand for
Asia, Bahrain in the Middle East, and Guam for Oceania.

Within each world region, particular countries vary dramatically in their

incarceration rates. For example, within European countries, the Russian
Federation's incarceration rate is over 10 times higher than the rate in Iceland
(481 vs. 47 per 100k). Similarly, within Asia, Thailand's incarceration rate is also
over 10 times higher than the country (India) with the lowest incarceration rate
(381 vs. 30 per 100k).

Although these international comparisons give some indication of the relative

use of incarceration within and across world regions, it is important to exercise
some caution in interpreting these data. The primary problem with these
international comparisons is that different countries may use different
definitions of "incarceration" and incarceration structures/facilities that seriously
distort the reported incarceration rate. This especially true in comparisons across
countries like the U.S. and many Asian and African countries.

Criminology Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

Table 27.1: Imprisonment Rates per 100,000 Population (Select Countries)

Region/Country Rate Region/Country Rate

North/Central/South America: Europe:

Argentina (2011) 147 Albania (2012) 160
Belize (2012) 476 Austria (2012) 103
Bermuda (2012) 417 Azerbaijan (2011) 413
Bolivia (2012) 130 Belarus (2012) 335
Brazil (2012) 274 Belgium (2011) 100
Canada (2009) 114 Bosnia/Herzeg. Fed. (2011) 77
Chile (2013) 270 Bulgaria (2012) 151
Columbia (2013) 243 Croatia (2012) 115
Costa Rica (2012) 314 Czech Republic (2013) 154
El Salvador (2013) 422 Denmark (2012) 68
Ecuador (2012) 149 England/Wales (2013) 148
French Guiana (2012) 267 Estonia (2013) 245
Guatemala (2012) 98 Finland (2012) 60
Greenland (2009) 340 France (2013) 102
Guyana (2011) 260 Georgia (2013) 224
Honduras (2012) 152 Germany (2012) 80
Mexico (2013) 209 Greece (2012) 111
Nicaragua (2012) 148 Hungary (2013) 186
Panama (2013) 404 Iceland (2012) 47
Paraguay (2012) 115 Ireland, Republic of (2013) 94
Peru (2012) 202 Italy (2013) 108
Suriname (2011) 191 Latvia (2012) 297
United States (2011) 716 Lithuania (2012) 314
Uruguay (2012) 282 Macedonia (2011) 122
Venezuela (2012) 161 Malta (2011) 144
Netherlands (2012) 82
Caribbean: Northern Ireland (2013) 99
Norway (2012) 71
Aruba (2011) 228
Bahamas (2012) 444 Poland (2013) 220
Barbados (2012) 379 Portugal (2013) 134
Cuba (2012) Romania (2013) 156
510
Russia Federation (2013) 481
Dominican Republic (2013) 240
Scotland (2013) 147
Grenada (2012) 424
Serbia (2011) 153
Haiti (2013) 95
Slovenia (2012) 69
Jamaica (2011) 163
Puerto Rico (2011) 311 Spain (2013) 149
St. Kitts and Nevis (2013) 701 Sweden (2012) 67
Trinidad and Tobago (2012) Switzerland (2012) 82
281
Turkey (2013) 173
Virgin Islands (US) (2011) 539
Ukraine (2013) 306

Criminology Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

Africa: Asia:
Algeria (2011) 156 Afghanistan (2012) 76
Angola (2011) 96 Bangladesh (2013) 42
Botswana (2012) 205 Cambodia (2012) 106
Burundi (2013) 72 China (2012) 121
Cameroon (2011) 119 India (2011) 30
Chad (2012) 41 Indonesia (2012) 59
Demo. Rep. of Congo (2010) 33 Iran (2012) 284
Egypt (2011) 80 Japan (2012) 54
Ethiopia (2009-2010) 136 Kazakhstan (2013) 295
Gabon (2006) 196 Laos (2004) 69
Ghana (2013) 53 Malaysia (2013) 132
Kenya (2012) 121 Mongolia (2012) 287
Liberia (2012) 46 Myanmar (2009) 120
Libya (2013) 81 Nepal (2012) 48
Madagascar (2012) 85 Pakistan (2012) 39
Morocco (2013) 220 Philippines (2012) 111
Mozambique (2012) 64 South Korea (2012) 93
Nigeria (2013) 31 Singapore (2012) 230
Rwanda (2012) 492 Sri Lanka (2011) 100
South Africa (2013) 289 Taiwan (2013) 280
Sudan (2011) 56 Tajikistan (2010) 130
Swaziland (2012) 284 Thailand (2013) 381
Tanzania (2013) 78 Turkmenistan (2006) 224
Tunisia (2012) 199 Uzbekistan (2012) 152
Uganda (2012) 97 Vietnam (2012) 145
Zimbabwe (2013) 129

Middle East: Oceania:

Bahrain (2012) 275 American Samoa (2011) 240
Iraq (2012) 110 Australia (2012) 130
Israel (2012) 223 Fiji (2012) 174
Jordan (2011) 95 Guam (2012) 316
Kuwait (2010) 137 Marshall Islands (2012) 58
Lebanon (2012) 118 Micronesia, Fed. States (2012) 80
Oman (2002) 61 New Caledonia (2012) 163
Qatar (2011) 60 New Zealand (2013) 193
Saudi Arabia (2013) 162 Papua New Guinea (2012) 48
Syria (2004) 58 Solomon Islands (2012) 54
United Arab Emirates (2006) 238 Tonga (2012) 150
Yemen (2013) 55 Vanuatu (2012) 75

Source: Internal Centre for Prison Studies ([Link]

Note: The countries within each region with the highest incarceration rates are highlighted.

Criminology Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

c. Corporal Punishment

Corporal punishment involves the direction application of force on the offender’s

body for the primary and immediate purpose of inflicting pain and suffering
(Miethe and Lu 2005: 33). The philosophical rationale for this type of criminal
punishment includes retribution (e.g., sanction in kind by removing the tongue of
a liar, the hands of a thief), specific and general deterrence (e.g., using severe
physical pain to deter future wrongdoing), and the rehabilitation of the offender
(e.g., the use of physical punishment to elicit a conditioned response of law-
abiding behavior).

As described by Miethe and Lu (2005: 34-35), the particular means of inflicting

corporal punishment are virtually limitless, restricted only by the imagination
and standards of decency. The particular methods of choice for torture and
inflicting pain are also linked to customs, rituals, and the availability of
technology within particular countries at particular times. Corporal punishment
may yield a range of outcomes, from short-term pain (e.g., spanking, caning),
permanent disfiguration and injury (e.g., branding, amputation) to death.

Without question, corporal punishment gained its greatest notoriety in earlier

historical periods. The most infamous periods of corporal punishment occurred
during the Spanish Inquisition (1478-1834), the reign of Henry VIII (1507-1547)
and the Elizabethan period (1558-1603) in England, the “reign of terror” (1793-
174) during French Revolution, the Puritan settlements of the 17th century, and
the mass genocides and democides of the 20th century (e.g., the holocaust in
Nazi Germany, Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the Turk-Armenian genocides, the
slaughter and torture of different groups in Africa [e.g., Sudan, Burundi, Uganda,
Nigeria]). Within the 21st century, corporal punishments have remained popular
in the modern world in some contexts (e.g., the spanking of children by parents,
coerced confessions for wrongdoing, the use of physical punishments under
Islamic law and in developing countries).

The most common forms of corporal punishment include the following:

• Flogging. The whipping of the body

with some object (e.g., sticks,
leather straps, branches,
cords). Public floggings in the early
American colonies were used to
enforce discipline, vilify evil,
enhance community solidarity, and
to deter others (Miethe and Lu
2005: 35).

Criminology Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

Whipping was the primary method for punishing slaves in the Southern
colonies. In both the military and prison labor camps, flogging has also
had a long history in maintaining rules and conformity.

• Branding and other bodily mutilations. Branding involved the marking of

the body with a letter or other mark that signifies the offender's deviant
status or criminal offense (e.g., “T” for thieves, “B” for blasphemers, “A”
for adultery). Branding provided a direct means of public stigmatization
of the accused, especially when it was done on the forehead or other
parts of the face.

As described in detail elsewhere (see Miethe and Lu 2005: 36-37),

the most gruesome and extreme types of bodily mutilation
occurred in the Middle Ages. Stretching machines like the rack,
presses and other crushing devices, bludgeoning tools, cages with
spikes to impale the occupant, and specially designed cutting
tools to slowly bleed and disembowel (i.e., removing internal
organs) were some of the common methods of punishments in
this historical period. Other civilizations (like ancient Greece, the
Song Dynasty in early China, the Roman Empire) also used
mutilation as forms of corporal punishment. These involved such
practices as slicing, whipping, burning, boiling, and
beating. Genital mutilation (e.g., removal of the female clitoris) is
practiced in many countries of Africa and the Middle East to
control sexual pleasure and promiscuity.

• Capital Punishment. Corporal punishment that is designed to cause

death. The actual methods of execution vary widely by time and culture.
They also differ in terms of whether they resulted in instant or slow
death. For example, beheadings (e.g., by axe, sword, guillotine),
hangings, and strangulations have been identified as the most common
means for merciful or instant death. The use of firing squads, gas
chambers, and lethal injections are modern forms of instant death
(Miethe and Lu 2005: 38). In contrast, the historical approaches for slow
or lingering death include the acts of burning, boiling, stoning, crucifixion,
draw and quartering, and being “broken on the wheel”.

While capital punishment in the U.S. will be described later,

several observations about the global history of capital
punishment and specific methods are summarized below (see, for
more detailed coverage of these topics, Miethe and Lu 2005: 37-
44):

Criminology Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

o Beheading was considered an honorable form of punishment for

nobles and conquered enemies in Ancient China and early
Egypt. However, it has been applied in most countries to both
nobles and commoners.

o Thousands of French citizens lost their heads in the guillotine

during the “reign of terror” (1793-1794). The guillotine was
considered more efficient than other methods and a major
technological improvement because it stabilized the head and
used a tilted blade for a cleaner decapitation.

o In contrast to other lethal methods (e.g., beheading), hanging has

always been considered a rather lowly or less dignified form of
capital punishment in Western societies. It has been estimated
that over 72,000 people were hanged in England between 1509
and 1547 during the reign of Henry VIII (Rusche and Kirchheimer
1939:19). “Hanging days” in England had a carnival-like
atmosphere. Within American history, the hanging of bandits in
the "wild west" frontier was less of a public spectacle.

o The use of lethal gas as a state-sponsored sanction achieved its

greatest notoriety within the context of the mass extermination
of Jews in the holocaust of Nazi Germany (Miethe and Lu 2005:
40). Several million citizens were killed by gas in concentration
camps and by other methods in this period. Lethal gas attacks
have been used as corporal punishment more recently in the
ethnic genocide of the Kurds in Iraq. The gas chamber was
developed in the U.S. in the mid 1920s, primarily as a response to
adverse public reactions to the brutality of electrocutions and
hanging (Miethe and Lu 2005: 40).

o Electrocution as a state-sponsored execution method began in the

U.S. in the late 1800s. It was the primary method of execution for
most of the 20th century before being replaced by lethal injection
as the dominant method. No other country has used electrocution
as its formal method of execution.

o Lethal injections are a relatively new method of executions. This

method of punishment began in the United States in 1982 and has
been used more recently used in other countries (e.g., Guatemala,
China). Over 95% of the legal executions in the United States are
now done by lethal injection.

Criminology Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

o Fire (“burning at the stake”) as a method of execution has been

used throughout history. The burning of the body had great
symbolic value within some religious contexts (e.g., burning
carried a special horror for medieval Christians because it
destroyed the body, scattered the ashes, and thereby made it
impossible to have a proper burial) (Miethe and Lu 2005: 43).

o Drawing and quartering is an especially brutal method of

execution because it involves the separation of body parts. Under
this method of execution, offenders sentenced to this death were
first hanged until near death, taken down from the gallows, had
their limbs tied to horses, and were then pulled apart as the
horses ran in different directions (Miethe and Lu 2005: 43).
Disembowelment (i.e., the ripping out of internal organs) and the
removal of genitals were often done when the accused was still
alive prior to the drawing and quartering. The body parts were
usually shown to the offender and then burned in a fire. As
portrayed in the movie “Braveheart”, Sir William Wallace, the
Scottish patriot, was executed through this method in 1305. His
body parts were spread over all corners of Great Britain as a
message for others of the consequences of dissension (Miethe
and Lu 2005: 43).

o The method of lapidation (i.e., stoning) involved the tossing of

heavy rocks and stones at the victim until death (Miethe and Lu
2005: 44). Its origins derive from the Mosaic code. Stoning has
been used in recent times under Islamic law in several countries
(e.g., Afghanistan and Iran). Historically, stoning was a common
method of execution for women who committed adultery.

2. Philosophies for Criminal Punishments

Regardless of the particular type of punishment (i.e., economic, physical

restraint, corporal), criminal sanctions are often justified on the principles of
retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, and/or rehabilitation. The specific
principles that underlie these dominant philosophies for punishment are
summarized below.

a. Retribution

The principles of revenge and retribution are the oldest and most basic
justifications for punishment. This idea of equating punishment with the gravity
of the offense is found within the Judeo-Christian tradition in the Mosaic laws of

Criminology Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

the Old Testament that emphasize the idea of “an eye for an eye” (Miethe and
Lu 2005: 16). For most retributionists, questions about the offender’s state of
mind or whether punishment can deter them from future wrongdoing are largely
irrelevant--what matters, instead, is that the punishment fits the crime and that
the wrongdoers receives his/her just deserts. This non-utilitarian idea that
punishment is justified on its own grounds (i.e., it doesn’t need to have some
other future utility) is a general principle that has remained popular in criminal
sentencing and public beliefs about how punishment should be distributed in a
free and democratic society (Miethe and Lu 2005:16).

The basic retributive principle of “let the punishment fit the crime” has been at
the center of criminal sentencing practices in the U.S. for much of its history.
However, beginning in the mid 20th century, this principle was modified (called
"neo-classical thought") to accept the idea that some offenders may be less
blameworthy or culpable due to factors outside of their control (e.g., diminished
capacity, mental disease or defect, immaturity). Under this revised retributive
theory of just deserts, punishment should fit primarily the moral gravity of the
crime and, to a lesser extent, the characteristics of the offender (Miethe and Lu
2005: 16). Nearly all current approaches to sentencing in the U.S. (e.g.,
mandatory sentences, sentencing guidelines, presumptive sentencing, habitual
offender laws) are based on the retributive philosophy of punishing people
primarily for their "act" and not because of their personal characteristics.

As a philosophy for the actual allocation of punishments, retribution has been

criticized on several grounds. According to Miethe and Lu (2005), the major
criticisms of this philosophy include the following:

• Strict retributive sanctions based solely on the nature of the offense (e.g.,
mandatory sentences for drug trafficking, the use of firearms in the
commission of crimes) are often criticized as being overly rigid, especially
in societies that recognize degrees of individual culpability and
blameworthiness.

• The principle of lex talionis (i.e., the “eye for an eye” dictum that
punishment should correspond in degree and kind to the offense) has
limited applicability. For example, how do you sanction in kind acts of
drunkenness, drug abuse, adultery, prostitution and/or traffic violations
like speeding?

• The assumption of proportionality of punishments (i.e., that punishment

should be commensurate or proportional to the moral gravity of the
offense) is untenable in most pluralistic societies because there is often
widespread public disagreement on the severity of particular offenses.
Under these conditions, a retributive sentencing system that espouses

Criminology Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

proportional sanctions would be based on the erroneous assumption that

there is public consensus in the rankings of the moral gravity of particular
types of crime.

Even with these criticisms, however, the retributive principle of lex talionis and
proportionality of sanctions remains a dominant justification of punishment in
most Western cultures.

b. Incapacitation

As mentioned earlier, incapacitative

sanctions are designed to decrease the
physical opportunity for a person to commit
criminal acts. The elimination of an
individual’s opportunity for crime is done
through different types of physical
restraints on his/her actions (Miethe and Lu
2005: 18). A wide assortment of
incapacitative restraints and other devices
are available for controlling this person's
actions, including the use of stocks,
electronic monitoring, intensive
supervision/probation, incarceration, and
breathalyzer machines in cars of convicted
drunk driver.

Over the last two decades, extensive

research has been conducted on how to
best identify and incapacitate offenders
that have the greatest risks of criminal
offending. This model of "selective
incapacitation" is based on the idea that
significant gains in reducing crime may be
achieved by the physical incapacitation of
the most dangerous, chronic offenders
because anywhere between 80 and 90% of
all crime in the U.S. is committed by only a
small proportion (e.g., 10-20%) of
offenders.

While this goal of selective incapacitation of "high risk" and persistent offenders
sounds like a great idea, current efforts to successfully predict in advance these

Criminology Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

high-risk offenders and incapacitate them for long periods of time have only
been marginally effective as a crime reduction strategy.

c. Deterrence

Deterrence involves the crime reduction benefits from the threat of legal
sanctions. It focuses on this basic question about criminal sanctions and criminal
behavior: Does the threat of criminal punishments persuade previous offenders
from future criminal behavior and/or non-criminals from getting involved in
crime? Criminal sanctions are thought to have the greatest potential for
deterring illegal behavior when they are severe, certain, and swift in their
application (Miethe and Lu 2005: 20). These authors also note that punishments
are widely assumed to be most effective for instrumental conduct (i.e.,
deliberate actions directed at the achievement of some explicit goal) and for
potential offenders who have low commitment to deviance as a livelihood (e.g.,
the person is not a professional criminal).

Based on a rational conception of human behavior, the deterrence doctrine

assumes that individuals have free choice in seeking criminal or conventional
solutions to their problems. From this classical perspective on crime and
punishment, criminal solutions to problems become unattractive options when
the costs of this conduct exceed its expected benefit. These costs of engaging in
criminal behavior are primarily swift, certain, and severe sanctions for this law
violating behavior. Depending upon the type of offender and offense, some
types of criminal sanctions may be more effective than others--for example,
white-collar offenders may be more deterred by severe economic sanctions than
would be the typical street-level offender. Whatever the offender or offense,
however, the literature on deterrence suggests that both certain and severe
punishment are necessary conditions for threat of legal sanctions to deter, but
certainty of getting caught/sanctioned is more important than the severity of
punishment for deterring criminal behavior.

The research literature identifies several types of deterrence. As summarized by

Miethe and Lu (2005: 20-21), the major types of deterrence include the
following:

• Specific deterrence is concerned with the effectiveness of punishment on

that particular individual’s future behavior. Recidivism rates (e.g., rates
of repeat offending for previously convicted offenders) are often used to
measure the specific deterrent value of punishments. Evidence of
specific deterrence would be a low recidivism rate (e.g., < 10% of
convicted offenders repeating their crimes).

Criminology Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

• General deterrence asks whether the punishment of particular offenders

deters other people from committing similar types of deviance. A
comparison of crime rates over time or across jurisdictions is the typical
method for ascertaining the general deterrent value of punishment. A
lower crime rate is often viewed as an indicator of general deterrence.

• Marginal deterrence focuses on the relative effectiveness of different

types of punishments as either general or specific deterrents. For
example, if recidivism rates for prostitution were higher for those who
receive monetary fines than those who received jail time, jail time would
be rated higher in its marginal deterrent value as a specific deterrent for
this crime. Debates about capital punishment often focus on the marginal
deterrent value of life imprisonment compared to the death penalty as a
general deterrent for murder. For convicted white-collar criminals, the
question of marginal deterrence involves whether the deterrent value is
greater for economic sanctions (e.g., monetary fines) than incapacitative
sanctions (e.g., incarceration in prison).

• Partial deterrence involves situations in which the threat of sanction has

some deterrent value even when it does not lead to law-abiding
behavior. For example, if a thief picks someone’s wallet rather than
robbing them at gunpoint (because the thief was fearful of the more
serious penalty for committing an armed robbery), the thief would be
treated as a “successful” case of partial deterrence. Similarly, police
crackdowns on speeders would show evidence of partial deterrence
under these two conditions: (1) the average motorist under the new law
exceeded the speed limit by 5 miles and (2) the average motorist under
the old law exceeds the speed limit by 10 miles per hour. The average
motorist is still violating the law by exceeding the speed limit, but they
are driving slower.

According to Miethe and Lu (2005: 22), conclusions about the effectiveness of

criminal sanctions as a deterrent are limited by several basic factors:

• Persons often abide by laws or desist in criminal behavior for a variety of

reasons other than the looming threat or fear of legal sanctions. Some of
these non-deterrence constraints on behavior include one’s moral/ethical
principles, religious beliefs, physical abilities to commit the deviant act,
and the availability of opportunities to do it.

• Neither swift nor certain punishment exists in most legal systems in the
contemporary world. The majority of criminal offenses in all society are
unknown to the legal authorities and, even among the known offenses,
only a small proportion of offenses result in an arrest and conviction. The

Criminology Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

typical criminal penalty is often imposed in many months, if not years,

after the initial violation.

Watch Video Crim49:

Deterrence and Other Explanations for Decreasing

Crime

• The severity of punishment actually received by offenders is often far less

than the penalty mandated by the law, due to the operation of such
factors as plea bargaining, charge reductions, jury nullifications, executive
clemency and pardons, and “good time” provisions.

Based on what we know about deterrence, it is probably safe to conclude that

the threat of legal sanction deters some people some of the time. Although this
statement is not very profound, it is nonetheless the most reasonable conclusion
to be reached from the research literature on criminal sanctions and their
deterrent value.

d. Rehabilitation

Under a rehabilitative philosophy, the ultimate goal of criminal sanctions is to

restore a convicted offender to a constructive place in society through the
mechanisms of treatment, education, and/or training (Miethe and Lu 2005: 22).
Over American history, the symbolic significance of rehabilitation in the context
of punishment can be seen in the labels of “correctional facilities”,
“reformatories”, and “therapeutic community” that are used to describe jails,
prisons, and other institutions of incapacitation.

Rehabilitation is a penal philosophy that emphasizes the unique capacities and

qualities of each individual offender, necessitating an individual-level approach
to rehabilitation/reform. This focus on an individualized treatment approach is
logically consistent with indeterminate sentencing structures that give judges
enormous discretion to tailor punishments for the greatest good to the
individual offender and provide parole boards with equally high discretion to
release or retain offenders for future treatment (see Miethe and Lu 2005:23).

Criminology Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

While designed with good intentions, it has long been recognized that a
fundamental contradiction arises in any attempt to punish and rehabilitate at the
same time.

Accordingly, the general

ineffectiveness of various
rehabilitative programs within
penal institutions is often
attributed to the overemphasis
on custody rather than
treatment and diminished
budgets for educational
programs within these
institutions.

Without treatment and rehabilitation programs, it should come as no surprise

that about two-thirds of released prisoners recidivate within the first two years
of their release (Langan and Levin 2002).

3. U.S. History of Punishment

The U.S. history of punishment is characterized by wide differences in the

dominant philosophies over time. Some of these philosophies have been based
on utilitarian concerns (e.g., incapacitation for reducing the opportunity to
offend, deterrence to threaten people into law-abiding behavior, rehabilitation
to reform the individual). Others like retribution are not concerned with the
utility of punishments--it is one’s just desert for their actions and it is neither
directed at future behavior (like rehabilitation and deterrence) nor past
behaviors (like the philosophy of restorative justice).

Although multiple justifications for punishment are found within any given
period of American history, the dominant philosophy/approach to punishment,
in chronology order, are represented by the following sequence of five “R’s”:

• Retribution. The dominant philosophy in early Colonial America was

retribution. Criminals were punished “in kind” through the biblical
principles of the “eye-for-eye” sanctions.

• Restraint. Punishment in the early 18th and much of the 19th century
was directed at the physical restraint of offenders. These restraint
devices included the pillory (i.e., a wooden structure that had holes to
secure one’s head and hands), chains and ropes to restrict the movement
of the offender, and later, the use of cellars, dungeons, and/or jails to

Criminology Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

hold people within a physical structure. Multiple purposes/functions

were served by these restraints on the body, including (1) incapacitation
to physically prohibit reoffending, (2) the use public stocks/pillories as a
visual reminder of the community’s norms about appropriate conduct
and to dramatize/symbolize the evil of this deviant behavior, and (3) the
use of restraints to reform them through religious penitence. The Walnut
Street Jail in Pennsylvania in 1790 was the first penitentiary in this
country. Another model of prisons (the Auburn system) was developed in
the 1820s that emphasized solitary confinement, strict discipline, and
hard labor.

• Reform. During the late 19th century and most of the 20th century (at
least until the mid 1970s), the dominant philosophy became reform
through rehabilitation. This reform era began with the establishment of
various facilities like New York’s Elmira Reformatory in 1876 that rejected
the dominant penal credo of “silence, obedience, and labor”. Instead, it
focused on individualized treatment. This rehabilitative philosophy
involved a wide variety of treatment modalities over this 100-year period,
including types of aversion therapy (e.g., electric shock), lobotomies, and
more vocational/educational programs. A report in the mid 1970s on the
current state of rehabilitation (called the Martinson Report) was
instrumental in generating the idea that “nothing works”. This demise of
rehabilitation in the mid 1970s was followed by the “lock ‘em up” mantra
that lead to dramatic rise in U.S. prison populations.

• Reintegration. Sparked by concerns about dramatic rises in prison

populations and the adverse effects of imprisonment for those who may
have been better handled through other programs, the “reintegration
movement” began in the late 20th century. The primary means of
reintegrating offenders into mainstream society was through various
types of community-based diversion programs that kept them out of
formal processing within the criminal justice system if they met certain
conditions. For example, some drug offenders and many other non-
violent offenders (e.g., petty thieves) were given types of informal and
conditional probation--they would stay in the community and do
community service in lieu of jail/prison time. Specialized courts (e.g. Drug
Courts) emerged at the end of the 20th century and serve a similar
diversion function. While relatively low rates of recidivism are often
found for participants in these types of diversion and reintegration
programs, they often focus on low risk offenders who have little
propensity to commit crime in the first place. Nonetheless, efforts to
divert these low risk offenders are often far more cost effective than
jail/prison sentences.

Criminology Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

• Retribution. Although various types of penal philosophies underlie

criminal punishments in the 21st century, the predominant justification
for state sanctions is again retribution. Some people may cling to the
ideas of rehabilitation or claim that punishments have high deterrent
value, but the most basic justification for current punishments is this
principle of retribution. This sentiment is reflected in the daily language
of “he/she got what he/she deserved” and the focus on the severity of
the offense as the primary basis for criminal sentences. For many drug
offenses (e.g., possession/use of marijuana) and other non-violent
offenders, community-based programs that have both treatment and
reintegrative components are often considered the appropriate
punishment because of the low moral gravity of these crimes. However,
for more serious crimes and habitual violators, punishment in the
modern era is firmly rooted in a neo-classical, retributive philosophy of
“let the punishment fit the crime” and, to a lesser extent, the offender.

Watch Video Crim50: Watch Video Crim51:

Retribution Most Punitive Countries

Criminology Chapter 27: Criminal Sanctions and Punishment

Application Questions:

1. Give examples of types of economic sanctions that are being used in

current national and international conflicts/disputes?

2. Drawing upon information you have learned from previous chapters,

provide several explanations for why the U.S. has one of the highest
incarceration rates in the world.

3. List different types of corporal punishments that are currently used or

approved by the U.S. courts.

4. Under what conditions does the threat of legal sanction serve as a

deterrent for crime?

5. Based on our high crime rates and high recidivism rates, why doesn't
deterrence work in the U.S.?

Criminology Chapter 28: Capital Punishment

Chapter 28:
Capital Punishment

Objectives:

• Know the global trends in the abolition and retention of capital

punishment.

• Know the general prevalence and legal status of capital punishment

throughout American history.

• Identify the major issues surrounding the debate on capital punishment

and the particular views on each issue by abolitionists and retentionists.

Capital punishment is the ultimate criminal sanction. It has been widely used
throughout history as a state-sponsored punishment. Extra-judicial executions by
quasi-governmental security forces, paramilitary organization, and vigilante
groups are also part of the historical and contemporary context of lethal
punishments. Some examples of these practices include the lynch mobs of the
U.S. post-Civil War period, the “death squads” that roam cities and the rural
countryside of many countries, and the mass killings through democide and
genocide in Africa [Burundi, Sudan, Uganda] and other world regions.

1. Global Trends in Capital Punishment

From an historical and comparative perspective, the social and legal acceptance
of the death penalty, the particular means of inflicting death, and the execution
process have changed dramatically across countries over time (see, for review,
Miethe, Lu, and Deibert 2005; Hood 2002; Miethe and Lu 2005; Simon and
Blaskovich 2002). Currently, there is wide variability within and across world
regions in these practices, but the major global trend has been a clear movement
toward the abolition of capital punishment in both law and in practice.

As of the end of 2019, Amnesty International (2019) reports that 106 countries in
the world (i.e., a majority of nations) have abolished capital punishment in law
for all crimes. A total of 142 countries (67% of all nations) have abolished the

Criminology Chapter 28: Capital Punishment

death penalty in law or practice. This pattern is in sharp contrast to the mid
1960s when less than 25 countries were identified as having abolished capital
punishment (Hood 1996; Miethe and Lu 2005). There were at least 20 countries
that are known to have carried out executions in 2019 (Amnesty International
2019). Amnesty International has recorded 657 executions in these 20 nations in
2019. This number does not count the thousands of people who are believed to
be executed annually in China and other nations that don’t provide official data
on death sentences.

Source: Amnesty International "Death Penalty Trends" (2020)

Patterns of retention and abolition of the death penalty vary widely across world
regions. They also use different methods of execution in these different
regions. Current practices within each world region, arranged by locations with
the highest-to-lowest prevalence of death penalty countries, are summarized
below:

• Middle East. This region has the highest concentration of countries that
legally retain capital punishment for ordinary crimes. Nearly all of the 14
countries in this region have the death penalty. The only possible
exception is Israel--they have abolished capital punishment for ordinary
crimes but they still permit legal executions for “exceptional crimes”
committed during wartime (see Amnesty International 2002). Seven
countries in this region (Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and
Yemen) conducted executions in 2019.

Criminology Chapter 28: Capital Punishment

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Egypt are among the leading countries of the
world in terms of their annual volume of legal execution (see Amnesty
International 2019; Miethe and Lu 2005). In 2019, there were at least 251
executions in Iran, 184 in Saudi Arabia, and at least 100 in Iraq. Only
China had more executions than these countries.

Some of the lethal methods used in this Middle East region include
stoning (typically for the offense of adultery under Islamic law),
beheading by sword, hanging, and firing squads. Although most
executions in the Middle East, like other regions, are done in private
settings (e.g., in prisons), public executions (including television
broadcasts of them) have also occurred in several of these countries (e.g.,
Iran, Lebanon, Yemen) in the last decade.

• Caribbean Countries. Countries within this region represent the second

most prevalent location for the retention of capital punishment—over
three fourths of these countries currently retain it in law. However, while
the death penalty is legally permitted, it is rarely used in these countries
in the 21st century. According to reports from Amnesty International, the
Bahamas and Cuba are the only Caribbean countries that have conducted
executions in the last decade. However, extra-judicial executions by
security forces and various opposition groups have been a common
practice within Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

• Asian Countries. About two-thirds of the countries within the continent

of Asia have retained capital punishment and have conducted executions
in the 21st century. Over 80% of the countries in Eastern Asia (e.g., China,
Japan, North Korea, Taiwan) and Central Asia (e.g., Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan, Tajikistan) have imposed death sentences in this century (see
Amnesty International 2000-2019). In contrast, about 50% of the
countries in Southern/Southwest Asia (e.g., Afghanistan, Bangladesh,
Pakistan) have legal executions. Even in Asian countries where legal
executions are abolished or rarely occur, extra-judicial executions by
“death squads” and other armed opposition groups have a long and
continuing history. China is clearly the world leader in the number of
executions--for example, human rights groups estimate that at least
2,500 people were executed in China in 2001. Both shooting at point-
blank range and lethal injections are the modern execution methods in
China. Stoning, firing squads, lethal injection, and hanging are the lethal
methods used in other Asian countries (see Miethe and Lu 2005).
Amnesty International (2010) estimates that “1000s” have been executed
in China in 2010.

Criminology Chapter 28: Capital Punishment

• Africa. The majority of countries in Africa have the death penalty in law
and practice. However, similar to other world regions, there are wide
differences within this continent. Central and North Africa have the
highest level of retentionist countries, whereas death penalties have not
been imposed in the vast majority of the countries in the regions of West
and Southern Africa (Miethe and Lu 2005). However, millions of people
across Africa have been killed by acts of genocide, democide, and various
other types of legal and extra-judicial executions over the last 50
years. When these other types of state-sponsored violence are
considered, Africa would be rated as one of the most prevalent locations
for lethal punishments.

• North/Central/South America. Capital punishment is the exception

rather than the rule among countries within the general region of the
Americas. The U.S. is the only country in North America that has retained
the death penalty for ordinary crimes (like murder)—it has been
abolished in both Canada and Mexico. The vast majority (5 of 7) of
countries in Central America have abolished capital punishment, with
only Belize and Guatemala retaining it. However, both Belize and
Guatemala did not have anyone on death row and no reports of new
death sentences in 2019. Guyana and Suriname are the only countries in
South America that have the death penalty, but neither of them has
executed anyone in the 21st century (Amnesty International 2008).

• Europe. Capital punishment has been virtually eliminated in Europe.

According to Amnesty International Reports (2019), only Belarus in this
part of the world retains legal executions for ordinary crimes. However,
civil strife in the Baltic region and the former country of Yugoslavia has
been linked to widespread extra-judicial executions.

• Oceania. The lowest prevalence of capital punishment in both law and

practice is found within countries of the South Pacific Ocean (e.g.,
Australia, New Zealand, Palau, Samoa, Tonga). None of these countries
have performed a legal execution in the 21st century and most of them
(80%) have abolished the death penalty (Miethe and Lu 2005; Amnesty
International 2019).

2. Capital Punishment in the U.S. (Prevalence and Legal History)

Capital punishment has been an element of the American criminal justice system
since Colonial times. It was used in all of the original colonies. Over 1,500
executions are part of the historical records in these colonies from 1608 to 1799
(source: Espy files). Persons were executed in this Colonial era for such acts as

Criminology Chapter 28: Capital Punishment

piracy, slave revolts, robbery, counterfeiting/forgery, and witchcraft (e.g., Salem

witch trials).

During the mid 1800s, capital punishment received notoriety from the events
surrounding the Civil War and the expansion of the West, especially within the
context of the hanging of bandits and cattle rustlers. Vigilante groups (e.g., KKK,
regulators) were also relatively common during this era, dispensing their own
forms of extra-legal punishments that often resulted in serious physical injuries
and/or death.

During the 20th century, the number of legal executions in American society
fluctuated widely (see Figure 28.1). Executions increased from the 1910s through
the 1930s before dropping in the 1940s until the temporary moratorium in the
1970s, increasing again for the subsequent decades of the 1980s and 1990s. As a
result of growing questions about the possibility of error in death penalty
convictions (e.g., through the discovery of over 200 false convictions through
DNA exonerations), states have recently been more cautious about imposing
death sentences. Due to these factors, the number of U.S. executions in the 21st
century is lower than the previous decade. In both 2011 and 2012, there were
43 executions in this country (see Death Penalty Information Center 2019). The
number of U.S. executions remained relatively low in subsequent years,
including 28 (2015), 20 (2016), 23 (2017), 25 (2018), 22 (2019), and 17
executions in 2020.

Figure 28.1: U.S. Executions From 1921 to 2009

Source: Reeder (2013)

Criminology Chapter 28: Capital Punishment

The U.S. legal history of capital punishment in the last half of the 20th century is
represented by the following major cases/rulings:

• The U.S. Supreme Court in Furman vs. Georgia (1972) ruled that the
discretionary imposition of the death penalty was “cruel and unusual
punishment” under the 8th and 14th Amendments. The Court objected
to the arbitrariness of its imposition. Furman vs. Georgia voided the laws
about the death penalty in 39 states and the District of Columbia.

• As a response to the arbitrariness of the death penalty, a number of

states immediately began to establish a list of offenses in which the
death penalty was considered mandatory punishment. However, the U.S.
Supreme Court in a series of cases in the South (e.g., Gregg vs. Georgia
[1976], Woodson vs. North Carolina [1976], Roberts vs. Louisiana
[1976]) struck down the constitutionality of these mandatory death
penalty provisions because of their rigidity.

• The current legal status of capital punishment is that most states identify
“death qualified” offenses (usually First-Degree Murder or Capital
Murder) and a fixed number of aggravated factors that must be present.

As of December 2020, capital punishment was permitted in 28 states and the

Federal Government (Death Penalty Information Center 2020). According to this
agency’s fact sheet and website, the characteristics of persons given a death
sentence or executed in this time period are summarized below:

• 17 people were executed in 5 states and federally in 2020. Texas (n=3)

had the most executions, whereas the other states had 1 execution
(Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee). 10 persons were executed for
federal offenses. Between 1976 and 2020, there have been over 1,500
executions in the U.S.---the top 5 states for executions in the Post-
Furman era are (1) Texas (570 executions), Virginia (113), Oklahoma
(112), Florida (99) and Missouri (90).

• Over 2,500 U.S. prisoners in 2020 were under a sentence of death. The
largest numbers of death row inmates were found in California (711
inmates), Florida (347), Texas (210), and Pennsylvania (142).

• Nearly all (99%) of persons executed in the U.S. from 1976 to 2020 were
men. There were 16 women executed among the over 1,500 persons
executed in this time period.

Criminology Chapter 28: Capital Punishment

• About 42% of persons executed in the post-Furman era (1976-2020) were

White, 41% Black, 14% Hispanic and 3% among other racial/ethnic
groups.

• More than one-half (56%) of those executed in this period had been
under a death sentence for at least 15 years.

• Lethal injection (n=1349), electrocution (n=163), and gas chamber (n=11)

have been the primary methods for U.S. execution since 1976. Firing
squad (n=3) and hanging (n=3) have also been used as lethal methods in
this time period.

3. Issues Surrounding the Death Penalty Debate

Capital punishment is one of the most controversial issues in the U.S. criminal
justice system. About 70% of Americans are in favor of capital punishment
(when they are asked “are you in favor of the death penalty for convicted
murders?). However, when the question is asked “do you favor the death
penalty or life imprisonment without parole as the penalty for convicted
murders, only about 50% of the people support capital punishment.

There is a large group of people/organizations that want to retain capital

punishment (this group is called Retentionists) and there is a large group of
people/organizations that want to abolish capital punishment (this group is
called Abolitionists). These two groups disagree fundamentally on the following
issues surrounding the death penalty:

• Moral Issue. Is it morally wrong to take someone’s life, even when the
offenders have shown through their actions that they can’t live as law-
abiding citizens? Abolitionists of the death penalty argue that executing a
murderer is murder and the society has a moral obligation to preserve
human life. Retentionists, in contrast, think it is silly to consider
executions to be murders—Instead, they argue that society has a moral
obligation to protect society from evil people and the only way to do this
is by capital punishment. Retentionists also state that other people in
prison and prison guards also need to be protected from these bad
people, so the only real way to protect all citizens is by using the death
penalty.

• Protection of Society. Can society be protected from convicted

murderers by putting people in prison rather than executing
them? Abolitionists say “yes” and argue that the tight security
surrounding maximum security prisons (especially “supermax” places)

Criminology Chapter 28: Capital Punishment

virtually guarantees that the public is safe from these

people. Retentionists emphasize that public safety is not guaranteed by
imprisonment because (1) escapes have occurred from “secure” prisons
in the past and (2) the system of parole allows convicted murders to be
released from prison--from their perspective, capital punishment is the
only guarantee for public safety. Abolitionists’ counter argument to the
safety issue stemming from paroling murders is that these parolees have
an extremely low recidivism rate (e.g., studies have shown that less than
5% of paroled murderers repeat criminal behavior after their release
from prison). So, to Abolitionists, you don’t have to execute people to
protect the public.

• Economic Costs. Retentionists question why we should spend about

$40,000 to $50,000 a year for imprisonment in a maximum security
prison for a convicted murder when we can more cheaply execute them.
However, given the expensive appeal process in capital cases and the
additional court costs for these convictions (e.g., multiple public defense
attorneys must be assigned to these cases), it currently costs more
money to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life. For
example, the average cost of an execution in Texas is about $1.8 to $2.3
million, but it would cost only about $1.2 million for 30 years of
imprisonment (at $40,000 per year). Abolitionists use this economic
argument to support their anti-death penalty position.

• Marginal Deterrence. The question of marginal deterrence involves

whether the death penalty provides more of a general deterrent (i.e.,
deters others from criminal behavior) than life imprisonment. To
evaluate this type of deterrence, the common strategy is to compare the
murder rates in adjoining states that do and do not have the death
penalty. If capital punishment provides more general deterrence than life
imprisonment, death penalty states should have lower murder rates than
non-death penalty states.

When these comparisons of murder rates are conducted, there is

little or no evidence of marginal deterrence. In fact, states with
the death penalty often have a slightly higher (not lower) murder
rate than other states in their vicinity that don’t have the death
penalty. Abolitionists use this evidence to support their position,
whereas Retentionists argue that you can’t really compare state’s
because they differ on other characteristics that affect murder
rates (e.g., their age distribution, population distribution,
economic conditions, urbanization, etc.).

Criminology Chapter 28: Capital Punishment

• The Nature of Homicide. About 95% of all homicides known to the police
are “crimes of passion” in which the person is guided by emotionalism
rather than rationalism. In these situations, it seems reasonable to
conclude that homicide offenders are not thinking about the legal
consequences of their actions--thus, the threat of capital punishment is
not going to stop them. Under these conditions, Abolitionists argue that
capital punishment is not going to be a deterrent and should therefore be
abolished. In contrast, Retentionists argue that 95% of homicides are
impulsive and spontaneous acts, but they also argue that this is the case
because capital punishment is deterring the planned and calculated
murders. If it wasn’t for the threat of capital punishment, a lot more
homicides would be happening and a smaller proportion (like 40-60%
rather than 95%) of all U.S. homicides would be “heat of passion”
killings.

• Discriminatory Application. Another source of disagreement involves

explanations for the overrepresentation of Blacks among persons who
are executed. For example, studies of the racial profile of both the victim
and offender of homicides reveal the following differences in the percent
of murders within each category in which prosecutors sought a death
sentence in South Carolina (Paternoster 1983):

• White Offender- White Victim (8%).

• White Offender- Black Victim (13%).
• Black Offender- Black Victim (1%).
• Black Offender- White Victim (37%).

Given these differences (especially the high rate of death requests

for Black on White homicides), Abolitionists argue that this wide
disparity is due to racial discrimination against Black offenders
and, for these reasons alone, capital punishment should be
abolished. In contrast, Retentionists attribute these disparities to
differences in the type of homicide situations underlying each of
these offender-victim groupings rather than overt racial
biases. For example, many of these situations in which Black
offenders kill White victims are felony murders (e.g., robbery
homicides of convenience stores and other targets), the types of
murders that are widely designated as capital crimes.

• Possibility of Error. The risks of executing an innocent person is always a

possibility in any capital case. Retentionists argue that these risks of
executing an innocent person are extremely rare because of the various
procedural safeguards in capital cases and other criminal trials. In
contrast, Abolitionists cite the growing number of false convictions that

Criminology Chapter 28: Capital Punishment

have been overturned through DNA exonerations to support their claims

that these risks are too high and, therefore, that the death penalty should
be abolished.

• The Brutalization Effect. The brutalization effect suggests that homicides

increase after state-sponsored executions because these state executions
serve to brutalize or cheapen human life. Time series analyses find that
there is some evidence for a slight leveling of homicides in the two-week
period before an execution and an increase in homicides in the two-week
period after an execution. Abolitionists focus on this post-execution
increase in homicides as evidence of this brutalization effect and the
need to abolish capital punishment because of it. Retentionists focus on
the pre-execution leveling of homicides as supporting evidence of the
potential deterrent effect of the threat of capital punishment.

Watch Video Crim52:

Death Penalty and the Brutalization Effect

Although many of the arguments made by both the Abolitionists and

Retentionists make a great deal of sense, there is no conclusive evidence to
clearly support either of these positions. For example, even after years of
research, we simply do not know (1) whether capital punishment is a better
marginal deterrent than life imprisonment, (2) whether most homicides are
impulsive and/or spontaneous acts because the threat of the death penalty is
deterring the more rational/planned killings, and (3) whether post-execution
brutalization effects are cancelled out by pre-execution deterrent effects. Under
these conditions, there is no definitive evidence to support the assertions from
parties on either side of the death penalty debates. This is why the death penalty
continues to be a highly debated issue.

Ultimately, it appears that whether someone supports or opposes the death

penalty depends on whether or not they believe that the state has the right to
take someone else’s life. If you believe the state has this power, then you will
probably support the death penalty. If you don’t believe in this power of the
state, then you probably will be opposed to the death penalty.

Criminology Chapter 28: Capital Punishment

Application Questions:

1. Provide several possible explanations for why the U.S. is one of only a few
Western democratic countries that still retains the death penalty.

2. Why do you think the Middle East is the world region with the highest
concentration of countries that retain capital punishment?

3. How would retentionists of the death penalty make a counter-argument

against the following statement:

"95% of all homicides are spontaneous acts in the heat of passion.

So, how would the threat of the death penalty deter these crimes
when such offenders are not thinking about the consequences of
their actions".

4. Search the Internet for the homepage of the "Innocence Project". Find
how many murderers have been exonerated by DNA and other evidence
based on the work of this project. Does this evidence of errors in verdicts in
murder cases change your opinion at all about whether capital punishment
should be retained or abolished?

Criminology Bibliography

BIBLIOGRAPHY (Select References)

Amnesty International. 2019. Death Penalty Trends. Available at:

[Link]
facts/death-penalty-trends

Anderson, Elijah. 1999. Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the
Inner City. New York: W. W. Norton.

Bandura, Albert. 1973. Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Clarke, Ronald V. 1997. Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. 2nd
Edition. New York: Harrow and Heston.

Cohen, Lawrence E. and Marcus Felson. 1979. “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A
Routine Activity Approach.” American Sociological Review 44:588-608.

Cornish, Derek, B. and Ronald V. Clarke. 1986. The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice
Perspectives on Offending. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 1960-2012. Crime in the United States: Uniform
Crime Reports. Select Years. Washington, D.C. (Website: [Link]
us/cjis/ucr/ucr)

Hirschi, Travis. 1969. The Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.

Katz, Jack. 1988. Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions for Doing Evil. New
York: Basic Books.

Merton, Robert K. 1938. “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological Review 3:
672-682.

Messner, Steven F. and Richard Rosenfeld. 1994. Crime and the American Dream.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Miethe, Terance D. and Hong Lu. 2005. Punishment: A Comparative Historical

Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Miethe, Terance D., Richard C. McCorkle, and Shelley Listwan. 2006. Crime Profiles: The
Anatomy of Dangerous Persons, Places, and Situations. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Press

Criminology Bibliography

Miethe, Terance D. and Wendy C. Regoeczi. 2004. Rethinking Homicide: Exploring the
Structure and Process of Lethal Violence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Moffitt, Terri E. 1993. “Life-Course-Persistent and Adolescent-Limited Antisocial

Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy.” Psychological Review 100: 674-701.

Mosher, Clayton J., Terance D. Miethe, and Timothy C. Hart. 2011. The Mismeasure of
Crime. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

National Crime Victimization Survey. 1973-2019. Criminal Victimization in the United

States. U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.
Website: [Link]

Sykes, Gresham, and David Matza. 1957. “Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of

Delinquency.” American Journal of Sociology 22:664-70.

CRIM-100-Chapter-1-2022-1st Sem
No ratings yet
CRIM-100-Chapter-1-2022-1st Sem
9 pages
Crim 1 Review 1
100% (3)
Crim 1 Review 1
109 pages
Introduction to Criminology Overview
No ratings yet
Introduction to Criminology Overview
35 pages
Introduction To Criminology
No ratings yet
Introduction To Criminology
54 pages
PCE1CRIMINOLOGY
No ratings yet
PCE1CRIMINOLOGY
75 pages
Criminology Essentials Guide
No ratings yet
Criminology Essentials Guide
19 pages
(Ebook PDF) Crime and Criminology: An Introduction To Theory, Third Canadian Edition Instant Download
No ratings yet
(Ebook PDF) Crime and Criminology: An Introduction To Theory, Third Canadian Edition Instant Download
58 pages
Criminal Studies
No ratings yet
Criminal Studies
44 pages
Chapter One Introduction To Criminology
No ratings yet
Chapter One Introduction To Criminology
30 pages
Introduction to Criminology Overview
No ratings yet
Introduction to Criminology Overview
8 pages
Understanding Criminology: Key Concepts
No ratings yet
Understanding Criminology: Key Concepts
4 pages
Intro2crim Review
No ratings yet
Intro2crim Review
36 pages
Introduction to Criminology Overview
No ratings yet
Introduction to Criminology Overview
26 pages
Introduction to Criminology Basics
No ratings yet
Introduction to Criminology Basics
101 pages
To Criminology: By: Denief S. Vergara
No ratings yet
To Criminology: By: Denief S. Vergara
129 pages
(Ebook PDF) Crime and Criminology: An Introduction To Theory, Third Canadian Edition Instant Download
No ratings yet
(Ebook PDF) Crime and Criminology: An Introduction To Theory, Third Canadian Edition Instant Download
50 pages
Introduction To Criminology
No ratings yet
Introduction To Criminology
56 pages
Intro To Criminology 2019
0% (1)
Intro To Criminology 2019
34 pages
Chapter 1 Criminal Sociology
No ratings yet
Chapter 1 Criminal Sociology
29 pages
Introduction to Criminology Guide
100% (1)
Introduction to Criminology Guide
89 pages
Understanding Criminology and Its Scope
No ratings yet
Understanding Criminology and Its Scope
15 pages
Week 1
No ratings yet
Week 1
4 pages
Intro To Crim
No ratings yet
Intro To Crim
10 pages
Intro To CRIM Reviewer 1
No ratings yet
Intro To CRIM Reviewer 1
18 pages
Module Guide For Itc
No ratings yet
Module Guide For Itc
110 pages
Crim 101
No ratings yet
Crim 101
42 pages
Reviewer To Criminology First Sem
No ratings yet
Reviewer To Criminology First Sem
15 pages
Intro To Crim Lecture
No ratings yet
Intro To Crim Lecture
176 pages
Overview of Criminology Concepts
No ratings yet
Overview of Criminology Concepts
12 pages
Overview of Criminology Concepts
No ratings yet
Overview of Criminology Concepts
10 pages
Overview of Criminology and Its Evolution
No ratings yet
Overview of Criminology and Its Evolution
18 pages
Etymology of Criminology Explained
No ratings yet
Etymology of Criminology Explained
6 pages
Introduvtion To Criminology
No ratings yet
Introduvtion To Criminology
110 pages
000 Module 1 Criminology
No ratings yet
000 Module 1 Criminology
10 pages
Introduction To Criminology
No ratings yet
Introduction To Criminology
120 pages
Introduction To Criminology Lecture Notes 2021
No ratings yet
Introduction To Criminology Lecture Notes 2021
31 pages
Criminology Notes
No ratings yet
Criminology Notes
45 pages
Introduction To Criminology
No ratings yet
Introduction To Criminology
4 pages
Introduction To Criminology Langomes
No ratings yet
Introduction To Criminology Langomes
27 pages
Understanding Criminology: A Comprehensive Overview
No ratings yet
Understanding Criminology: A Comprehensive Overview
30 pages
Overview of Criminology Studies
83% (6)
Overview of Criminology Studies
63 pages
Nature and Scope of Criminology
No ratings yet
Nature and Scope of Criminology
10 pages
Nims School of Law: Is Criminology A Science
No ratings yet
Nims School of Law: Is Criminology A Science
9 pages
Crime Board Slides
No ratings yet
Crime Board Slides
55 pages
Introduction To Criminology Module Saludez
100% (1)
Introduction To Criminology Module Saludez
77 pages
CRIM 1 - Lesson 2
No ratings yet
CRIM 1 - Lesson 2
3 pages
8 2024 Intro To Crim For July 2024
No ratings yet
8 2024 Intro To Crim For July 2024
163 pages
Criminology: Understanding Crime Causes
No ratings yet
Criminology: Understanding Crime Causes
99 pages
Crim 001 Lecture
No ratings yet
Crim 001 Lecture
324 pages
Criminology: Evolution and Key Concepts
100% (1)
Criminology: Evolution and Key Concepts
3 pages
Table of Specification Introduction To Criminology 15%
No ratings yet
Table of Specification Introduction To Criminology 15%
18 pages
Criminology Assignment
No ratings yet
Criminology Assignment
35 pages
Understanding Crime and Criminology
No ratings yet
Understanding Crime and Criminology
29 pages
Chapter 1&2 The Nature of Criminology
No ratings yet
Chapter 1&2 The Nature of Criminology
23 pages
Economics of Valentine's Day in India
No ratings yet
Economics of Valentine's Day in India
4 pages
TANTUM VERDE Benzydamin PDF
100% (1)
TANTUM VERDE Benzydamin PDF
32 pages
The Fish Philosophy
100% (2)
The Fish Philosophy
42 pages
Understanding Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
100% (3)
Understanding Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
37 pages
PCA Rotation Methods Comparison
No ratings yet
PCA Rotation Methods Comparison
8 pages
Canon Law on Religious Transfers
No ratings yet
Canon Law on Religious Transfers
101 pages
ECCE 2013 Sample Test Key
No ratings yet
ECCE 2013 Sample Test Key
1 page
Basic Plot Overview of Othello'
No ratings yet
Basic Plot Overview of Othello'
2 pages
Prenatal Yoga and Exercises Guide
No ratings yet
Prenatal Yoga and Exercises Guide
3 pages
Mobile Phones and Farmers' Marketing Decisions in Ethiopia
No ratings yet
Mobile Phones and Farmers' Marketing Decisions in Ethiopia
12 pages
Ambank NLC & LACA Listing 2025-06-20 (PG, KDH, SLG & JHR & SBH & PRK)
No ratings yet
Ambank NLC & LACA Listing 2025-06-20 (PG, KDH, SLG & JHR & SBH & PRK)
82 pages
Leila Wilhelm: Journalism Student Bio
No ratings yet
Leila Wilhelm: Journalism Student Bio
1 page
Motivational Songs for Friendship and Strength
No ratings yet
Motivational Songs for Friendship and Strength
5 pages
Educational Tour Narrative Report 2024
No ratings yet
Educational Tour Narrative Report 2024
7 pages
READING QUIZ G.X-WPS Office
No ratings yet
READING QUIZ G.X-WPS Office
22 pages
Learning Curves and Time Calculation
No ratings yet
Learning Curves and Time Calculation
3 pages
Ebook4Expert Ebook Collection
67% (3)
Ebook4Expert Ebook Collection
204 pages
Four-Bar Linkage Mechanisms
No ratings yet
Four-Bar Linkage Mechanisms
6 pages
Syllabus Grammar 2 - B2
No ratings yet
Syllabus Grammar 2 - B2
2 pages
Quantitative Aptitude PDF
No ratings yet
Quantitative Aptitude PDF
163 pages
Personnel Administration: UNIT-3 Rank and Position Classification
100% (2)
Personnel Administration: UNIT-3 Rank and Position Classification
14 pages
Medicinal Plants To Lower Blood Pressure.
No ratings yet
Medicinal Plants To Lower Blood Pressure.
4 pages
Daily Lesson Log for Grade 5 ESP
No ratings yet
Daily Lesson Log for Grade 5 ESP
5 pages
IT Salary Guide 2024 Job Seeking
No ratings yet
IT Salary Guide 2024 Job Seeking
31 pages
Baenglishelectivesem. II
No ratings yet
Baenglishelectivesem. II
188 pages
Exploring the Essay Film's Dialogue
No ratings yet
Exploring the Essay Film's Dialogue
14 pages
Floor Safavid Government Institutions
No ratings yet
Floor Safavid Government Institutions
3 pages
Measurement in Quantitative Research
No ratings yet
Measurement in Quantitative Research
12 pages
Grammar Passages by Anupam Banerjee 2018
No ratings yet
Grammar Passages by Anupam Banerjee 2018
2 pages
Home - SMA KATOLIK ST. LOUIS 1
No ratings yet
Home - SMA KATOLIK ST. LOUIS 1
5 pages