THEORY AND IDEOLOGY IN MARXIST CRIMINOLOGY

Marxist criminology can be analyzed both as a theory of what is and as an ideology of what ought to be. theory must be examined by logic and empirical evidence. An ideology and its vision of the good society must be examined by comparison with other ideologies and real societies based on competing ideologies. Such comparisons would reveal that societies based on Marxist ideology have been unjust and repressive and do not represent a future for which criminologists should strive as Quinney urges them to do.     

PRESTIGE OF JOURNALS IN CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

The prestige of professional journals is an important element in the academic world because of the relationship of journal prestige to the careers of individuals and to the reputations of academic institutions. This study investigates the system of journal prestige in the field of criminology and criminal justice, using the ratings of professional journals obtained from a sample of respondents who are members of professional associations in criminology and criminal justice. The results show that there is a relatively high degree of agreement about the relative prestige of journals in the field, despite the fact that criminology and criminal justice is a multidisciplinary field involving professionals from a wide variety of occupational settings.     

PERIODICAL PRESTIGE IN CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: A Comment

This study examines the problems involved in measuring prestige of periodicah in criminology and criminal justice via subjective evaluations. An alternative measure of journal eminence based on citation frequency is developed. The differences in journal rankings derived from these contrasting methods are assessed.     

CONSTRUCTING CROSS-CULTURAL THEORIES IN CRIMINOLOGY

Over the past twenty years, researchers have, once again, discovered the benefits of studying a phenomenon cross-culturally, and a revival of the method is currently underway. However, criminologists currently use the method to determine the scope and generalizability of their theories, which were orginally developed for use in one particular culture. Due to problems in this approach, their activities have been met with varied success. The purpose of this article is to examine the use of the cross-cultural research method in constructing and testing criminological theories. The article will distinguish between the use of a method to determine a theory's scope and generalizability (Evaluative Approach) and the use of the method to construct explanatory models designed to transcend cultural boundaries (Generative Approach). The article will conclude with a detailed discussion of the latter.     

BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES IN CRIMINOLOGY *

For several decades, mainstream criminology has been dominated by sociological and political perspectives. Although findings from these fields must not be discarded or underplayed, considered alone, they do not offer a complete assessment of the contributions to criminal behavior. Data currently being generated from numerous behavioral sciences, such as behavioral genetics, physiological psychology, psychopharmacology, and endocrinology, indicate that biological factors play an equally significant role in the development of antisocial behavior and should be considered accordingly. Incorporation of the theoretical parameters and findings of these behavioral sciences into a criminological framework would yield valuable in formation regarding processes underlying antisocial behavior. Such a multidisciplinary approach is likely to enhance capabilities to predict, prevent, and manage antisocial behavior. Theoretical parameters, methodological issues, selected research findings, potential applications, and precautions are discussed.     

EARNEST A. HOOTON AND THE BIOLOGICAL TRADITION IN AMERICAN CRIMINOLOGY*

Biological explanations shaped criminology at its inception, and today they are reemerging with fresh vigor and increased potential. But many criminologists do not understand how biological theories developed, what they contributed to criminology generally and where they went astray. This paper focuses on the work of Earnest A. Hooton, whose criminological studies, published in 1939, met with decidedly mixed reviews but were nonetheless discussed for decades in criminological textbooks. Information about a now half‐forgotten and misunderstood figure like Hooton, in addition to being useful in and of itself, contributes to the history of criminology as a discipline—a project essential to the field's ultimate maturity. It helps build a history of criminological knowledge.     

GENE-BASED EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES IN CRIMINOLOGY *

In the past 20 years, several theories of criminal (and antisocial) behavior have been proposed from an evolutionary perspective, some of which specifically stipulate that people vary in their genetic dispositions toward criminality. It is these theories, herein called gene-based evolutionary theories, that are the focus of this article. Two categories of gene-based evolutionary theories are described. One category is crime specific, pertaining to the offenses of rape, spousal assault/murder, and child abuse neglect. The second category consists of two general theories of criminal and antisocial behavior: the cheater (or cad vs. dad) theory, and the r/K theory. In addition to assuming that genes contribute to variation in criminal (and antisocial) behavior, all five of these theories assume that natural selection has acted on human populations to open up reproductive niches for individuals and groups who victimize others. While the theories are still far too new to have been fully tested, we derive some of the most obvious hypotheses from each theory and explore the relevant empirical evidence. We show that while gene-based evolutionary theories open make predictions similar to strictly environmental theories, they also lead to unique hypotheses, several of which have at least some support.     

A TEST OF THE ORTEGA HYPOTHESIS IN CRIMINOLOGY

Following J. Cole and S. Cole (1973), we attempt to ascertain whether important scientific work is dependent upon works of lesser quality for fruition. The “Ortega hypothesis” posits such a dependence, and we test this assertion in criminology. Using some 2700 works published in criminology between 1945 and 1972, we demonstrate that less important works (those with few citations) are rarely utilized by much more important papers (those with the highest citation counts). The Ortega hypothesis is refuted, and most criminological literature contributes nothing or little that is useful to the field. This corroborates the conditions found by the Coles to exist in physics after their test of Ortega. The data we use are from Wolfgang et al. (1978).     

THE LIFE COURSE OF CRIMINOLOGY IN THE UNITED STATES: THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY 2003 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS*

The field of criminology lacks a sense of its own history. To rectify this situation, I apply the concepts and framework of the life‐course perspective to the development of criminology as a discipline. Examining criminology in the United States over the last 100 years, I discuss three eras (or life‐course phases), intellectual continuities and turning points in the field. My thesis is that if we knew our history, we would realize that ideas about crime matter. I offer a revised version on how to view criminology and in doing so address the theme of the 2003 annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, “The Challenge of Practice, the Benefits of Theory.”