Gato-docs.its.txstate.edu



Texas State University-San MarcosDepartment of Criminal JusticeCJ 7311: Advanced Criminological TheorySpring 2011Instructor: Jeffrey M. Cancino, Ph.D.Office: Hines 126Office Phone: 512-245-3331Email: jc68@txstate.edu (this is best method of contact)Texas State University’s TRACS Platform: Syllabi, class notes, and other material will be placed on TXST’s TRACS home page.Course Description & ObjectivesStudents will develop and apply knowledge surrounding a wide range of theoretical concepts, assumptions, propositions, and variables aimed at explaining crime-related outcomes. In the process, students will learn how social scientists empirically (i.e., quantitatively and qualitatively) assess theory and how theory influences public policy. Students will develop the ability to:1. understand the philosophy of science, including theoretical development/limitations2. distinguish between theoretical terms such as causation, association, andcorrelation that are central toward supporting/not supporting (i.e., falsification) theory.3. articulate many of the interdisciplinary (e.g., biological and sociological) and contemporary criminological theories.4. explain the nature and basis of crime causation, victimization, and citizen perceptions of crime (e.g., fear of crime, perceived safety, physical and social disorder).Required TextsChalmers A.F. (1999). What is this thing called science? Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Press.Kuhn, Thomas. 1962 (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press. Davidson Reynolds, Paul. 1971. A primer in theory construction. New York, NY:McMillan. Recommended General Theory Reading TextsBrown, S., Esbensen, F., & Geis, G. (latest edition). Criminology: Explaining crime and its context. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co.Bernard, T.G., Vold, G.B., and Snipes, J.B. (latest edition) Theoretical Criminology. Fifth Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.Williams, F.P. and McShane, M.D. (latest edition). Criminological Theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Class Format, Attendance and ParticipationThe class is designed as a seminar, meaning that the professor guides the discussion and does not lecture. In essence, each student is responsible for the entire reading, NO EXCEPTIONS or EXCUSES! By being prepared, students can serve as active participants in every class session. Class attendance is strongly encouraged and the professor reserves the right to record attendance at any time. At any point during the class discussion, the Socratic method of learning will be applied. This is a doctoral-level class and expectations are high. Academic-Scholastic DishonestyIt is your responsibility to be well-informed of policies and procedures regarding cheating, plagiarism, and collusion (SEE TXST POLICIES CATALOG). Classroom CivilityConsistent with TXST student policy (SEE TXST STUDENT POLICY), students are required to provide fellow classmates and the instructor with the utmost respect and vise-versa. The classroom environment should be an enjoyable one with cordial relationships. Any behavior that is offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive will NOT be tolerated. Student EvaluationsStudents will be evaluated on four requisites: regular class participation, class presentation, discussion papers, and one seminar paper. Regular Class Participation: As stated above, this course is designed as a seminar. The professor will NOT lecture on the course material per se, but will assist in guiding the class through the material. In a seminar, the each student is responsible for thoroughly dissecting the material for each class period. Students are expected to come prepared to class and answer any question put forth by the professor or fellow students. This includes being prepared to make insightful and substantive comments (anecdotal comments should be limited) on the material and/or ask questions that help clarify confusing points. Class Presentation: Each student will be assigned to small groups (size will depend on the number of students enrolled in the course) and will be responsible for making a presentation for one particular class period. Presentations should be approximately 20 minutes in length. Student presentations will not necessarily cover all of the material in full, but should draw on the major themes/points. Students are encouraged to broaden and update the information with additional material/articles/figures that are relevant to the topic. After the class presentation, the seminar roundtable intellectual discussions will begin. Note that students will also be graded in terms of how they respond to questions and how the material in presented. Discussion Papers*: One discussion paper is required (100 points). It is important to note that such paper should not exceed 5 pages of substantive text in length (strictly enforced). The five page limitation should motivate students to write clearly and succinctly. Seminar Paper*: Each student will be required to write one 10-15 page seminar paper. This assignment will be discussed in class. Students are encouraged to be creative (i.e., show diagrams or figures). All students should submit a paper that is consistent with current APA citation standards, Times New Roman and 12 point font. Final Exam: A final exam will be administered at the end of the semester. This exam, along with expectations, will be discussed in class. *NOTE THAT ALL LATE PAPERS WILL BE PENALIZED 25 POINTS PER DAY, INCLUDING WEEKENDS GradingClass Presentation/Participation: 20%Discussion Papers: 20% Seminar Paper: 30%Final: 30%All assignments/activities are based on 0-100 scoresGrading ScaleGrades will be assigned according to the following percentages:A100%-90%B89%-80%C79%-70%D69%-60%F59%-0%Week 1, January 24: Introduction to course and review syllabiWeek 2, January 31: The philosophy of science and knowledge acquisitionChalmers A.F. (1999). What is this thing called science? Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Press.Horowitz, Irving L. 2005. Cultural contradictions of contemporary sociology. MichiganQuarterly Review 44:481-495.MacKenzie, Donald, and Yuval Millo. 2003. Constructing a market, performing theory: thehistorical sociology of a financial derivatives exchange. American Journal of Sociology109:107-145. Abelson, Elaine B. 1989. The invention of kleptomania. Signs: Journal of Women inCulture and Society 15:123-143.RecommendedSteinmetz, George. 2005. The cultural contradictions of Irving Louis Horowitz. MichiganQuarterly Review 44:496-505.Week 3, February 7: Theoretical development, limitations, and measurementDevelopment and LimitationsKuhn, Thomas. 1962 (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press. 10-110 (Ch.1-9).Davidson Reynolds, Paul. 1971. A primer in theory construction. New York, NY:McMillan. (Ch. 3-6).Heise, David. 1975. Causal analysis. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience. (Ch. 1).Durkheim, Emile. 1985 (1982). The rules of the sociological method. New York, NY: FreePress. (Ch. 1-2).Karl Popper (PDFs)Measurement (note that factor and time series analysis are introduced here and will be discussed in future weeks below) Liska, Allen E. 1990. The significance of aggregate dependent variables and contextualindependent variables for linking macro-micro theories. Social Psychology Quarterly53:292-301.Marvell, T. B. and Moody, C.E. 2008. Can and should criminology research influence policy? Suggestions for Time-Series and Cross-Section Studies. Criminology and Public Policy 7:359-365.Worrall, J. 2008. The effects of local law enforcement block grants on serious crime. Criminology and Public Policy 7: 325-350. Worrall, J. and Pratt, T. C. 2005. Estimation issues associated with time series-cross section analysis in criminology. Western Criminology Review 5: 35-49.RecommendedLakatos, Imre, and Alan Musgrave (eds.). 1970. Criticism and the growth of knowledge.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Week 4, February 14: A critical examination of criminologyAkers, Ronald, and Christine Sellers. 2008. Criminological theories: Introduction,evaluation, and application. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. (Ch. 1).Short, James F. 2001. “Crime: Sociological Aspects” in Neil J. Smelser, and Paul B. Baltes(eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam:Elsevier Science. 2934-2937. Bernard, Thomas J. 1990. Twenty years of testing theories. What have we learned andwhy? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 27:325-347.Austin, James. 2003. Why Criminology is irrelevant. Criminology and Public Policy2:557-564.Young, Jock. 1981. “Thinking seriously about crime: some models in Criminology” inMike Fitzgerald, Gregor McLennan, and Jennie Pawson (eds.) Crime and society:Readings in History and Theory. London: Routledge.Available online at: , David, and Richard Sparks. 2000. Criminology, social theory, and the challengeof our times. British Journal of Criminology 41:189-204Savelsberg, Joachim, Ryan King, and Lara Cleveland. 2002. Politicized scholarship?Science on crime and the State. Social Problems 49:327-348.Tittle, Charles. 1985. “The assumption that general theories are not possible” in RobertMeier (ed.) Theoretical methods in Criminology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Sampson, Robert J. 2000. Whither the sociological study of crime? Annual Review ofSociology 26: 711-714.Week 5, February 21: Classical, biological, and deterrence theories of crimeNagin, D., and Paternoster, R. 1991. The preventative effects of the perceived risk of arrest: Testing an expanded conception of deterrence. Criminology, 29: 561-585.Blackwell, B. S. 2000. Perceived Sanction Threats, Gender, and Crime: A Test and Elaboration of Power-Control Theory. Criminology 38:439-488.Simons, R. L., Wu, C., Lin K., Gordon, L., & Conger, R. 2000. A Cross-Cultural Examinationof the Link Between Corporal Punishment and Adolescent Antisocial Behavior. Criminology 38:47-79.Spohn, C., & Holleran, D. 2000. "The Imprisonment Penalty Paid by Young, Unemployed Black and Hispanic Male Offenders. Criminology, 38:281-306. Erickson, M., Gibbs, J.P., & Jensen, G.F. 1977. The deterrence doctrine and the perceivedcertainty of legal punishments. American Sociological Review, 42: 305-317.Paternoster, R. 1987. The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment. Justice Quarterly, 4: 173-217.Simpson & Koper. 1992. Deterring corporate crime. Criminology, 30: 347-375.Booth, A.D., and Osgood, W. 1993. The influence of testosterone on deviance in adulthood: Assessing and explaining the relationship. Criminology, 31: 93-117.Cullen, F.T., Gendreau, P., Jarjoura, G.R., and Wright, J.P. 1997. Crime and the bell curve: Lessons from intelligent criminology. Crime and Delinquency, 43: 387-411.Denno, D. 1988. Human biology and criminal responsibility: Free will or free ride. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 137: 615-671.Mednick, S., Gabrielli, W.F., and Hutchings, B. 1984. Genetic influence in criminal convictions. Science, 224: 891-894.Walters, G.D., and White, T.W. 1989. Heredity and crime: Bad genes or bad research? Criminology, 27: 455-486.RecommendedDunawayk, R. G., Cullen, F. T., Burton, V. S., & Evans, T. D. 2000. The Myth of Social Classand Crime Revisited: An Examination of Class and Adult Criminality. Criminology 38:589-632. Becarria, C. 1963. On Crimes and Punishment. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.Bentham, J. 1948. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Edited with an introduction by Laurence J. Lafleur. New York: Hafner Publishing.Blumstein, A., Cohen,J., and Nagin, D. 1978. Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Sanctions on the Crime Rate. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Burkett, S.R, and Ward, D.A. 1993. A note on perceptual deterrence, religiously based moral condemnation, and social control. Criminology, 31: 119-134.Chiricos, T.G., and Waldo, G.P. 1970. Punishment and crime: An examination of some empirical evidence. Social Problems, 18: 200-217.Gibbs, J.P. (1975) Crime, Punishment, and Deterrence. New York: Elsevier.Nagin, D.S. (1998) Criminal deterrence: Research at the outset of the twenty-first century. Pp 1-42 in M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Volume 23. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Paternoster, R., Saltzman, L.E., Waldo, G.P., and Chiricos, T.G. 1983. Perceived risk and social control. Law and Society Review, 17: 457-480.Saltzman, L.E., Paternoster, R., Waldo, G.P., and Chiricos, T.G. 1982. Deterrent and experiential effects. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 19: 172-189Smith, D.A., and Gartin, P.R. 1989. Specifying specific deterrence. American Sociological Review, 54: 94-106.Stafford, M., and Warr, M. 1993. Reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30: 123-135.Tittle, C. 1969. Crime rates and legal sanctions. Social Problems, 16: 409-422.Week 6, February 28: Rational choice (free will/self control)Grasmick, H., Tittle, C., Bursik, R., and Arneklev, B. 1993. Testing the core empiricalimplications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30: 5-29.Hirschi, T., and Gottfredson, M. 1993. Commentary: Testing the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30: 47-54.Pratt, T.C., and Cullen, F.T. 2000. The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38: 931-964.RecommendedPratt, T. C. 2008. Rational choice theory, crime control policy, and criminological relevance. Criminology & Public Policy, 7 (1), 43-52.Geis, G. 2000. On the absence of self-control as the basis for a general theory ofcrime: a critique. Theoretical Criminology 4:55-69.Wright, Bradley, Entner Wright, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Phil A. Silva.1999. Low self control, social bonds and crime: social causation, social selection ofboth? Criminology 37:479-514.Akers, R.L. 1990. Rational choice, deterrence, and social learning theory in criminology: The path not taken. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81: 653-676.Bachman, R., Paternoster, R., and Ward, S. 1992. The rationality of sexual offending: Testing a deterrence/rational choice conception of sexual assault. Law and Society Review, 26: 343-372.Grasmick, H.G., and Bursik, R.J. 1990. Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law and Society Review, 24: 837-862.Piquero, A., and Pogarsky, G. 2002. Beyond Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence: Personal and vicarious experiences, impulsivity, and offending behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39: 153-186.Pogarsky, G., and Piquero, A.R. 2003. Can punishment encourage offending? Investigating the “resetting” effect. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40: 95-120.Evans, T.D., Cullen, F.T., Burton, V.S., Dunaway, R.G., and Benson, M.L. 1997. The social consequences of self-control: Testing the general theory of crime. Criminology, 35: 475-501.Reed, G.E., and Yeager, P.C. 1996. Organizational offending and neoclassical criminology: Challenging the reach of a general theory of crime. Criminology, 34: 357-382.Simpson, S.S., and Piquero, N.L. 2002. Low self-control, organizational theory, and corporate crime. Law and Society Review, 36: 509-547.Longshore, D., Turner, S., and Stein, J.A. 1996. Self-control in a criminal sample: An examination of construct validity. Criminology, 34: 209-228.Piquero, Alex, Randall MacIntosh, and Matthew Hickman. 2000. Does Self-Control AffectSurvey Response? Applying Exploratory, Confirmatory, and Item Response Theory Analysis to Grasmick et al.’s Self-Control Scale. Criminology 38:897-929.Benson, M., and Moore, E. 1992. Are white-collar and common offenders the same? An empirical and theoretical critique of a recently proposed general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29: 251-272.Cochran, J. K., Wood, P.B., Sellers, C.S., Wilkerson, W., & Chamlin, M. B. 1998. Academic dishonesty and low self control: An empirical test of a general theory of crime. Deviant Behavior, 18, pp. 28-50.Paternoster, R. 1989. Absolute and restrictive deterrence in a panel of youth. Social Problems, 36: 289-309.Paternoster, R. 1989. Decisions to participate in and desist from four types of common delinquency: Deterrence and rational choice perspective. Law and Society Review, 23: 7-40.Paternoster, R., and Simpson, S. 1996. Sanction threats and appeals to morality: Testing a rational choice model of corporate crime. Law and Society Review, 30: 549-583.Piliavin, Thornton, Gartner, and Matsuda. 1986. Crime, deterrence, and rational choice. American Sociological Review, 51:101-119.De Haan, W., and Vos, J. 2003. A crying shame: The over-rationalized conception of man in the rational choice perspective. Theoretical Criminology, 7: 29-54.Piquero, A., and Tibbetts, S. 1996. Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in offenders’ decision making: Toward a more complete model of rational offending. Justice Quarterly, 13: 481-510.Pogarsky, G. 2002. Identifying “deterrable” offenders: Implications for research on deterrence. Justice Quarterly, 19: 431-452.Tibbetts, S. G., and Herz, D. C. 1996. Gender differences in factors of social control and rational choice. Deviant Behavior, 17: 183-208.Week 7, March 7: The social ecology and social disorganizationBursik, R. 1988. Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26: 519-552.Hagan, J. & Coleman, J. P. 2001. Returning captives of the American war on drugs: Issues of community and family reentry. Crime and Delinquency 3:352-367.Kubrin, Charis E., and Ronald Weitzer. 2003. New directions in social disorganizationtheory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40:374-402.Cancino, J., Martinez, R., & Stowell, J. 2009. The impact of neighborhood context on intra- andinter-group robbery: The San Antonio Experience. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (AAPSS), May, 623. Osgood, D. W., & Chambers, J. M. 2000. Social disorganization outside the metropolis: An analysis of rural youth violence. Criminology 38:81-116.Peterson, R. D., Krivo, L. J., & Harris, M. A. 2000. Disadvantage and neighborhood violent crime: Do local institutions matter? The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37:32-63. Roundtree, P.W., Land K.C., Miethe. T.D. 1994. Macro-micro integration in the study of victimization: A hierarchial logistic model analysis across Seattle neighborhoods. Criminology, 32: 387-414.Sampson,R.J., and Groves, W.B. 1989. Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94: 774-802.Sampson, R.J.. Raudenbush, S.W., and Earls, F. 1997. Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multi-level study of collective efficacy. Science, 277: 918-924.Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Earls, F. 1999. Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review 64:633-660.Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. 1999. Systemic social observation of public spaces: A new look as disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology 105:603-651.Snodgrass, J. 1976. Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay: Chicago Criminologists. The British Journal of Criminology 16:1-19.RecommendedThomas, William I, and Florian Znaniecki (Eli Zaretsky, Ed.). 1918 (1984). The Polishpeasant in Europe and America. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. 85-122 (PartsIII-IV).Park, Robert. 1925 (1967). “The city: suggestions for the investigation of human behaviorin the urban environment” in Robert Park, and Ernst Burgess. The city. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press. 1-46 (Ch.1).Wilson, William J. 1987. The truly disadvantaged. Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress. 3-62 (Ch. 1-2).Bursik, Robert J., and Harold Grasmick. 1993. Neighborhoods and crime. Lexington, MD:Lexington. 1-59. (Ch. 1-2)Sampson, Robert J. 2006. “How does community context matter? Social mechanisms andthe explanation of crime rates” in Per-Olof H. Wikstrom, and Robert J. Sampson (eds.)The explanation of crime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 31-60.Taylor, Ralph B. 1997. Social order and disorder of street blocks and neighborhoods:ecology, microecology and the systemic model of social disorganization. Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency 34:113-155.Patillo, Mary E. 1999. Black picket fences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 1-90(Ch. 1-4)Venkatesh, Suddhir. 2000. American project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.65-109, 191-237 (Ch. 2, 5).Bursik, R.J., and Webb, J. 1982. Community change and patterns of delinquency. American Journal of Sociology, 88: 24-42.Elliot, D. S., Wilson, W. J., Huizinga, D., Sampson, R. J., Elliot, A., & Rankin, B. 1996. The effects of neighborhood disadvantage on adolescent development. The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 33:389-405.Heitgerd, J.L., and Bursik, R.J. 1987. Extra-community dynamics and the ecology of delinquency. American Journal of Sociology, 92: 775-787.Land, K. C., McCall, P. L., Cohen, L. E. 1990. Structural covariates of homicide rates: Are there any invariances across time and social space. American Journal of Sociology 95:922-963.Reiss, A., and Tonry, M. (1986) Communities and Crime (Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Volume 8). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Sampson, R. J. 1991. Linking the micro- and macro-level dimensions of community social organization. Social Forces, 70: 43-64.Sampson, R. J., & Lauritsen, J. L. 1993. Violent victimization and offending: Individual-situational-,and community-level risk factors, pp.1-114 in Understanding and Preventing Violence, Vol. 3, Reiss, A. J. Jr., & Roth, J. A. (eds.). Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press. Week 8, March 13: Spring Break – No ClassWeek 9, March 21: Strain theoryAgnew, R. 1987. On testing structural strain theories. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24: 281-286.Agnew, R. 1992. Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30: 47-88.Brezina, T. 1996. Adapting to strain: An examination of delinquent coping responses. Criminology, 34: 39-60.Burton, V. Cullen, F., Evans, D. and Dunaway, R.G. 1994. Reconsidering strain theory: Operationalization, rival theories, and adult criminality. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10: 213-239.Merton, R.K. 1938 Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3: 672-682.DeCoster, Stacy, and Lisa Kort-Butler. 2006. How general is general strain theory?Assessing determinacy and indeterminacy across life domains. Journal of Research inCrime and Delinquency 43:297-325.Tittle, Charles R., Lisa M. Broidy, and Marc G. Getz. 2008. Strain, crime, and contingencies.Justice Quarterly 25:283-312.RecommendedBernard, T.J. 1987. Reply to Agnew. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24: 287-290.Agnew, R. 2001. Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38: 319-361.Agnew, R. and White, H.R. 1992. An empirical test of general strain theory. Criminology, 30: 475-500.Agnew, R., Brezina, T., Wright, J.P., and Cullen, F.T. 2002. Strain, personality traits, and delinquency: Extending general strain theory. Criminology , 40: 43-72.Bernard, T. 1984. Control criticisms of strain theories: An assessment of theoretical and empirical adequacy. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21: 353-372.Bernard, T. 1987. Testing structural strain theories: An assessment of theoretical and empirical adequacy. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24: 262-290.Broidy, L. 2001. A test of general strain theory. Criminology, 39: 9-33.Farnworth, M. and Lieber, M.J. 1989. Strain theory revisited: Economic goals, educational means, and delinquency. American Sociological Review, 54: 263-274.Hoffman, J.P., and Miller, A.S. 1998. A latent variable analysis of general strain theory. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14: 83-110.Mazerolle, P., Burton, V., Cullen, F., Evans, T. D., and Payne, G. 2000. Strain, anger, and delinquent adaptations specifying general strain theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28: 89-101.Paternoster, R., and Mazerolle, P. 1994. General strain theory and delinquency: A replication and extension. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51: 564-577.Piquero, A., and Piquero, N.L. 1998. On testing institutional anomie theory with varying specifications. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 7(1): 61-84.Piquero, N.L., and Sealock, M.D. 2000. Generalizing general strain theory: An examination of an offending population. Justice Quarterly, 17(3): 449-484. Week 10, March 28: Anomie and institutional anomie theoryChamlin, M. and Cochran, J.K. 1995. Assessing Messner and Rosenfeld’s institutional anomie theory: A partial test. Criminology, 33: 411-429.Messner, Steven F. and Richard Rosenfeld. 1997. Political restraint of the market and levels of criminal homicide: A cross national application of institutional anomie theory. Social Forces 75:1393-1416.Maume, Michael O. and Matthew R. Lee. 2003. Social institutions and violence: A sub-national test of institutional anomie theory. Criminology 4:137-1171.Messner, Steve F., and Richard Rosenfeld. 2006. “The present and future of theinstitutional anomie theory” in Francis T. Cullen, John P. Wright, and Kristie R.Blevins (eds.) Taking stock: The status of criminological theory. New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction. 127-149.Baumer, Eric P., and Regan Gustafson. 2007. Social organization and instrumental crime:Assessing the empirical validity of classic and contemporary Anomie theories.Criminology 45:617-663., Steven F., Eric P. Baumer, and Richard Rosenfeld. 2004. Dimensions of social capital and rates of criminal homicide. American Sociological Review 69:882-903.Messner, Steven F. and Reid M. Golden. 1992. Racial inequality and racially disaggregated homicide rates: An assessment of alternative theoretical explanations. Criminology 30:421-447.Messner, Steven F. and Richard Rosenfeld. 1994. Crime and the American Dream. Belmont, California.: Wadsworth.Week 11, April 4: Routine activities theoryOsgoode, Wayne D., Jane K. Wilson, Patrick M. O’Malley, and Jerald G. Bachman. 1996.Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review61:635-655.Sampson, R. J., & Wooldredge, J. D. 1987. Linking the micro-and macro-level dimensions of lifestyle-routine activity and opportunity models of predatory victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 3:371-393.Cohen, Lawrence E., and Marcus Felson. 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: Aroutine activities approach. American Sociological Review 44:588-608.Kennedy, L.W., and Forde, D. R. 1990. Routine activities and crime. Criminology, 28: 137-152.Lynch, J. P., & Cantor, D. 1992. Ecological and behavioral influences on property victimization at home: Implications for opportunity theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 29:355-362.Miethe, T.D., and Meier, R.F. 1990. Opportunity, choice, and criminal victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27: 243-266.Sherman, L.W., Gartin, P.R., and Buerger, M.D. 1989. Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27: 27-56.Spano, R. & Freilich, J. D. 2009. An assessment of the empirical validity and conceptualization of individual level multivariate studies of lifestyle/routine activities theory published from 1995 to 2005. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37 (3), 305-314. Recommended Clarke, R., and Cornish, D. 1993. Routine Activity and Rational Choice (Advances in Criminological Theory, Volume 5). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.Cornish, D., and Clarke, R. 1987. Understanding crime displacement. Criminology, 25: 933-947.Felson, M. 1987. Routine activities and crime prevention in the developing metropolis. Criminology, 25: 911-931.Hough, M. 1987. Offenders choice of targets: Findings from the victims’ survey. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 3:355-369.Moffitt, T. E., Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A., & Fagan?J. Partner Abuse and General Crime: How Are They the Same? How Are They Different? Criminology 38:199-232. Osgood, D.W., Wilson, J.K., O’Malley, P.M., Bachman, and Johnston. 1996. Routine activities and deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61: 635-655. Sampson, R.J., and Lauritsen, J.L. 1990. Deviant lifestyles, proximity of crime, and the offender-victim link in personal violence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27: 110-139.Greenberg, David F. 1981. “Introduction” in David F. Greenberg (ed.) Crime andCapitalism. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. 1-35.Brady, James. 1984. “The social economy of arson: vandals, gangsters, bankers, andofficials in the making of an urban problem” in Steven Spitzer, and Andrew Scull (eds.)Research in Law, Deviance and Social Control. Greenwich, CT: JAI. 199-242.Young, Jock. 1999. The exclusive society. London: Sage. 1-95 (Ch. 1-3) Felson, Marcus. 2002. Crime and everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 20-69 (Ch. 2-4).Platt, Anthony. 1969. The Rise of the Child Saving Movement. A study in social policy andcorrectional reform. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and SocialScience 381:21-38.Lynch, Michael J., and Paul B. Stretesky. 2006. “The new radical criminology and thesame old criticisms” in Stuart Henry, and Mark M. Lanier (eds.) The EssentialCriminology Reader. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press. 191-202.Week 12, April 11: Subcultural, differential association/social learning/social bonding, and labeling/shaming theoriesSubcultureSampson, Robert J., and Lydia Bean. 2006. “Cultural mechanisms and killing fields. Arevised theory of community-level racial inequality” in Ruth D. Peterson, Lauren J.Krivo, and John Hagan (eds.) The many colors of crime. New York, NY: New YorkUniversity Press. 8-36.Sampson Robert J., and Dawn Jeglum Bartusch. 1998. Legal cynicism and(subcultural?) tolerance of deviance: the neighborhood context of racial differences.Law and Society Review 32:777–804.Steward, Eric, and Ronald Simmons. 2006. Structure and culture in African Americanadolescent violence: A partial test of the code of the streets thesis. Justice Quarterly23:1-33.Subculture RecommendedMassey, Douglas, and Nancy Denton. 1993. American apartheid: Segregation and themaking of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Ch. 2,5-6).Kobrin, Solomon, Joseph Puntil, and Emil Peluso. 1967. Criteria of status among streetgroups. Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency 4:98-118.Felson, Richard. 1992. Kick ‘em when they’re down. The Sociological Quarterly 33:1-16.Warner, Barbara. 2003. The role of attenuated culture in social disorganization theory.Criminology 41:73-98.Zatz, Marjorie S., and Edwardo L. Portillos. 2000. Voices from the Barrio: Chicano/agangs, families, and communities. Criminology 38:369-402.Differential Association and Social LearningAkers, R.L. 1996. Is differential association/social learning cultural deviance theory? Criminology, 34: 229-247.Bruinsma, G.J.N. 1992. Differential association theory reconsidered: An extension and its empirical test. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 8: 29-49.Krohn, M.D., Lanza Kaduce, L., and Akers, R.L. 1984. Community context and theories of deviant behavior: An examination of social learning and social bonding theories. Sociological Quarterly, 25: 353-371.Differential Association and Social Learning RecommendedAkers, R.L. 1985. Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. Third Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Hirschi, T. 1996. Theory without ideas: Reply to Akers. Criminology, 34: 249-256.Akers, R.L. 1998. Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviant Behavior. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Akers, R.L., and Jensen, G.F. (Eds.). 2003. Social Learning Theory and the Explanation of Crime: A Guide for the New Century. Advances in Criminological Theory, Volume 11. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Akers, R.L., Krohn, M.D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., and Radosevich, M. 1979. Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory. American Sociological Review, 44: 638-655.Bandura, A. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Burgess, R.L., and Akers, R.L. 1966. A differential association reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Social Problems,14: 128-47.Haynie, D.L. 2002. Friendship networks and delinquency: The relative nature of peer delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18: 99-134.Hoffman, J. 2003. A contextual analysis of differential association, social control, and strain theories of delinquency. Social Forces, 81: 753-785.Matsueda, R.L. 1988. The current state of differential association theory. Crime and Delinquency, 34: 277-306.Matsueda, R.L., and Heimer, K. 1987. Race, family structure, and delinquency: A test of differential association and social control theories. American Sociological Review, 52: 826-840.Sutherland, E.H. 1947. Principles of Criminology. Fourth Edition. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.Warr, M. 2002. Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of Criminal Conduct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Warr, M., and Stafford, M. 1991. The influence of delinquent peers: What they think or what they do? Criminology, 29: 851-866.Wood, P.B, Gove, W.R, Wilson, and Cochran, J.K. 1997. Nonsocial reinforcement and habitual criminal conduct: An extension of learning theory. Criminology, 35: 335-366.Social BondingKrohn, M.D., and Massey, J.L. 1980. Social control and delinquency behavior: An examination of the elements of the social bond. Sociological Quarterly, 21: 529-543.Social Bonding RecommendedAgnew, R. 1985. Social control theory and delinquency: A longitudinal test. Criminology, 23: 47-61.Agnew, R. 1991. A longitudinal test of social control theory and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28: 126-156.Cernkovich, S. and Giordano, P. 1987. Family relationships and delinquency. Criminology, 25: 295-321.Hirschi, T. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Kempf, K. 1993. The empirical status of Hirschi’s control theory. Pp. 143-185 in F. Adler and W. Laufer (Eds.), Advances in Criminological Theory, Volume 4. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.Matsueda, R.L., and Heimer, K. 1987. Race, family structure and delinquency: A test of differential association and social control theories. American Sociological Review, 52: 826-840.Reckless, W., Dinitz, S., and Kay, B. 1957. The self component in potential delinquency and potential non-delinquency, American Sociological Review, 25: 566-570Labeling and ShamingFarrington, D. 1977. The effects of public labeling. British Journal of Criminology, 17:112-125.Goode, Eric, and Nachman Ben-Yehuda. 1994. Moral panics: Culture, politics, and socialconstruction. Annual Review of Sociology 20:149-171.Labeling and Shaming RecommendedCostello, Barbara, and Paul R. Vowell. 1999. Testing control theory and differentialassociation: a reanalysis of the Richmond Youth Project data. Criminology 37:815-842.Becker, H.S. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.Lemert, E. M. 1967. Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Link, B.G., Cullen, F.T., Frank, J., and Wozniak, J.F. 1987. The social reaction of former mental patients. American Journal of Sociology, 92: 1461-1500.Matsueda, R.L. 1992. Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: Specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. American Journal of Sociology, 97: 1577-1611.Miethe, T.D., and McCorkle, R.C. 1997. Gang membership and criminal processing: A test of the “master status” concept. Justice Quarterly, 14: 407-427.Paternoster, R., and Iovanni, L. 1989. The labeling perspective and delinquency: An elaboration of the theory and an assessment of the evidence. Justice Quarterly, 6: 359-394.Sampson, R. 1986. Effects of socioeconomic context on official reaction to juvenile delinquency. American Sociological Review, 51: 876-885.Schur, E.M. 1971. Labeling Deviant Behavior: Its Sociological Implications. New York: Harper and Row.Smith, D.A., and Paternoster, R. 1990. Formal processing and future delinquency: Deviance amplification as selection artifact. Law and Society Review, 24: 1109-1131.Wellford, C.F. 1975. Labeling theory and criminology: An assessment. Social Problems, 3: 332-345.Wellford, C.F., and Triplett, R.A. 1993. The future of labeling theory: Foundations and promises. Pp. 1-22 in F. Adler and W.S. Laufer (Eds.), Advances in Criminological Theory, Volume 4. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.Week 13, April 18: Developmental/life course theory Osgood, D. Wayne. 2005. Making sense of crime and the life course. The Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science 602:196-211.MacMillan, R. 2000. Adolescent Victimization and Income Deficits in Early AdulthoodRethinking the Costs of Criminal Violence from a Life Course Perspective. Criminology 38:553-587.Maxwell, S. R., & Maxwell, C. D. 2000. Examining the 'Criminal Careers' of Prostitutes within the Nexus of Drug Use, Drug Selling, and Other Illicit Activities. Criminology 38:787-809.Jeglum-Bartusch, D., Lynam, D.R., Moffitt, T.A., and Silva, P.A. 1997. Is age important? Testing general versus developmental theories of antisocial behavior. Criminology, 35: 13-48.Sampson, R.J., and Laub, J.H. 1990. Crime and deviance over the life course: The salience of adult social bonds. American Sociological Review, 55: 609-627.Simons, R.L., Stewart, E., Gordon, L.C., Conger, R.D., and Elder, G.H. 2002. A test of life-course explanations for stability and change in antisocial behavior from adolescence to young adulthood. Criminology, 40: 401-434.Simons, R.L., Wu, C., Conger, R.D., and Lorenz, F.O. 1994. Two routes to delinquency: Differences between early and late starters in the impact of parenting and deviant peers. Criminology, 32: 247-276.Uggen, C. 2000. Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration model of age, employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 65: 529-546.Sampson, Robert J., and John Laub. 2005. A life-course view of the development of crime.Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 602:12-45.RecommendedLaub, J. H. & Sampson, R. J. 1993. Turning points in the life course: Why change matters to the study of crime. Criminology 31:301-25.Benson, M.L. 2002. Crime and the Life Course: An Introduction. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing.Glueck, S., and Glueck, E. 1950. Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. New York: Commonwealth Fund.Moffitt, T. 1993. Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100: 674-701.Paternoster, R., and Brame, R. 1997. Multiple routes to delinquency? A test of developmental and general theories of crime. Criminology, 35: 49-84.Piquero, A. and Brezina, T. 2001. Testing Moffitt’s account of adolescence-limited delinquency. Criminology, 39: 353-370.Piquero, A.R., and Mazerolle, P. (Eds.) 2001. Life-Course Criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Sampson, R.J., and Laub, J.H. 1992. Crime and deviance in the lifecourse. Annual Review of Sociology, 18: 63-84.Sampson, R.J., and Laub, J.H. 1993. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Sampson, R.J., and Laub, J.H. 1997. A life course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. Pp. 133-161 in T. Thornberry (Ed.), Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency (Advances in Criminological Theory, Volume 7). Warr, M. 1998. Life-course transitions and desistance from crime. Criminology, 36: 183-216.Bottoms, Anthony. 2006. “Desistance, social bonds, and human agency: a theoreticalexploration” in Per-Olof H. Wikstrom, and Robert J. Sampson. The explanation ofcrime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 243-289.Farrington, David P. 2006. “Building developmental and life-course theories ofoffending” in Francis T. Cullen, John P. Wright, and Kristie R. Blevins (eds.) Takingstock: The status of criminological theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. 335-367.Laub, John H., and Robert J. Sampson. 2003. Shared beginnings, divergent lives.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pp. 1-60, 275-293 (Ch. 1-3, 10).Moffitt, Terrie E. 1993. Adolescent-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior: adevelopmental taxonomy. Psychological Review 100:674-701.Thornberry, Terence. 1987. Toward an interactional theory of delinquency. Criminology25: 863-892.Blumstein, Alfred, and Jacqueline Cohen. 1987. Characterizing criminal careers. Science238:985-991.Laub, John H., and Robert J. Sampson. 1993. Turning points in the life course: Whychange matters to the study of crime. Criminology 31:301-326.Hagan, John and Alberto Palloni. 1988. Crimes as social events in the life course:Re-conceiving a criminological controversy. Criminology 26:87-100.Agnew, Robert. 1997. “Stability and change in crime over the life course: a strain theoryexplanation” in Thornberry, Terence P. (ed.) Developmental theories of crime anddelinquency. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Week 14, April 25: Application to policing and sentencing/correctionsPolicingSkogan, Wesley, and Tracey L. Meares. 2004. Lawful policing. Annals of the AmericanAcademy of Political and Social Science 593:66–83.Wilson, James O., and George Kelling. 1982. Broken windows: The Police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly 127: 29 – 38.Weisburd, David, and John Eck. 2004. What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, andfear? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 593: 42–65.Gau, J. M. and Pratt, T. C. 2008. Broken windows or window dressing? Citizens’ (in) ability totell the difference between disorder and crime. Criminology & Public Policy, 7 (2), 163-194.Policing RecommendedKahan, Dan M. and Tracy L. Meares. 1998. Law and (norms of) order in the inner city.Law and Society Review 32: 8-5-838.Harcourt, Bernard. 2002. Illusions of order: the false promise of broken windows policing.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Ch.1-6).Reiss, Albert J. 1975. The Police and the public. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.(Preface, Ch. 1-2).Taylor, Ralph. 2001. Breaking away from broken windows: Boulder, CO: Westview Press.(Ch. 1, 8).Sentencing/CorrectionsLiedka, Raymod, Anne Morrison Piehl, and Bert Useem. 2006. The crime-control effect ofincarceration. Does scale matter? Criminology and Public Policy 5:245-276.Spellman, William. 2000. What recent studies do (and don’t) tell us about imprisonmentand crime. Crime and Justice 27: 419-494.Wacquant, Loic. 2001. Deadly symbiosis. Punishment and Society 3:95-134Feeley, Malcolm, and Jonathan Simon. 1992. The new penology: Notes on the emergingstrategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology 30:449-474.Lynch, Mona. 2000. Rehabilitation as rhetoric: The ideal of reformation in contemporaryparole discourse and practices. Punishment and Society 2:40-65.Sentencing/Corrections RecommendedGarland, David. 1991. Punishment and culture: The symbolic dimension of criminaljustice. Studies in Law, Politics and Society 11:191-222.Hirsch, Andrew von. 1999. “Penal theories” in Michael Tonry (ed.). The handbook ofcrime and punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 659-mission on safety and abuse in America’s prisons. 2006. Confronting confinement.New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice. (Ch.1-3).Available at: , David. 2001. Culture of control: crime and social order in contemporary society.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Durkheim, Emile.1986. “On crime and punishment”, and “Two laws of penalevolution” in Steve Lukes, and Andrew Scull. Durkheim and the Law. Blackwell. 59-75, 102-132.Tonry, Michael. 1996. Malign Neglect. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Week 15, May 2nd: Theoretical critiques—an argumentative exerciseAnderson, Elijah. 2002. The ideologically driven critique. American Journal of Sociology107:1533-1550.Durneir, Mitchell. 2002. What kind of combat sport is Sociology? American Journal ofSociology 103:1551-1576., Katherine S. 2002. No shame: the view from the left bank. American Journal ofSociology 107:1577-1599.Wacquant, Lo?c. 2002. Scrutinizing the street: poverty, morality, and the pitfalls of urbanethnography. American Journal of Sociology 107:1468-1532.Week 16, May 9: Finals TBAREMEMBER, YOUR PAPER SHOULD BE SUPPORTED WITH EXISTING SCHOLARSHIP.Discussion and Final Paper Guidelines:Students are given a wide range of discretion to decide on a topic for the seminar papers. All papers must be relevant to the material covered in class and should emphasize some policy (e.g., the use of mandatory arrest policies, aggressive enforcement of zero tolerance policies, the use of alternatives to incarceration such as boot camps, the abandonment of the juvenile justice system, etc.). General Guidelines: All papers must be written in Times New Roman (12 point font). Students are encouraged to follow APA style guidelines yet may use others. The following general guidelines are offered: (a) Do not write in first person (e.g., I, me, we, etc.); (b) do not use contractions unless part of a quote; (c) parenthetical reference should be in the following format (Author, Year) unless specified differently by another formatting guide (you may be required to provide evidence of this); (c) absolutely no sources may come from the internet – period; and (d) be sure to integrate research into your arguments. Do not make statements of fact that are not supported with solid research.Use of Research: Seminar papers should be, above all else, research based. That is, students are expected to go beyond offering opinions and beliefs. As in all scholarly writing, students are expected to make clear arguments that are empirically grounded. Students are expected to draw heavily on empirically based journal articles, research reports, and books. You should avoid certain secondary sources (e.g., textbooks) but instead draw on the original research material. Students should also not use internet sources in any way. The internet is an appropriate medium to acquire empirically grounded reports (e.g., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bureau of Justice Assistance, and the National Institute of Justice). Contrary to popular belief, websites such as is generally not considered an objective, research-based source of research. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download