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.     

THE PRODUCTION OF CRIMINOLOGY

Criminology—in theory and practice—is a form of cultural production. We are creating a way of understanding and a way of living in the world. Our production, however. is mediated by our location in the class structure. Whether our expressions are critical and reflexive or merely reflections of capitalism is shaped by our ability to think dialectically and by our conscious involvement in the class struggle. We are in Ihe position-intellectually and socially-to think about and act upon the production of a socialist future.     

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.”     

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 CRIMINOLOGY OF GENOCIDE: THE DEATH AND RAPE OF DARFUR

Nearly 400,000 Africans may have been killed in racially motivated, lethally destructive, state supported, and militarily unjustified attacks on the farms and villages of the Darfur region of Sudan. Using victimization survey data collected from Darfurian survivors living in refugee camps in Chad, and drawing on conflict theory, we present evidence that the Sudanese government has directly supported violent killings and rapes in a lethally destructive exercise of power and control. In the language of the Geneva Genocide Convention, these attacks have inflicted on African tribal groups "conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part." The data include explicit evidence of the central mediating role played by racism in the attacks. There is little or no evidence from the surveys to support the claim of the Sudanese government that the attacks have been aimed at rebel groups as a counter-insurgency strategy. The Sudanese government claims are by this analysis not credible as self-defense arguments, but rather of the exercise of power and control through denial. Further forms of such denial are considered, including the slowness of modern American criminology to advance the study of genocide.     

THE LAW OF CRIME CONCENTRATION AND THE CRIMINOLOGY OF PLACE*

According to Laub (2004), criminology has a developmental life course with specific turning points that allow for innovations in how we understand and respond to crime. I argue that criminology should take another turn in direction, focusing on microgeographic hot spots. By examining articles published in Criminology, I show that only marginal attention has been paid to this area of study to date—often termed the criminology of place. I illustrate the potential utility of a turning point by examining the law of crime concentration at place, which states that for a defined measure of crime at a specific microgeographic unit, the concentration of crime will fall within a narrow bandwidth of percentages for a defined cumulative proportion of crime. By providing the first cross‐city comparison of crime concentration using a common geographic unit, the same crime type, and examining a general crime measure, I find strong support for a law of crime concentration. I also show that crime concentration stays within a narrow bandwidth across time, despite strong volatility in crime incidents. By drawing from these findings, I identify several key research questions for future study. In conclusion, I argue that a focus on the criminology of place provides significant opportunity for young scholars and has great promise for advancing criminology as a science.     

DEMONSTRATING THE VALIDITY OF TWIN RESEARCH IN CRIMINOLOGY

In a recent article published in Criminology, Burt and Simons ( 2014 ) claimed that the statistical violations of the classical twin design render heritability studies useless. Claiming quantitative genetics is “fatally flawed” and describing the results generated from these models as “preposterous,” Burt and Simons took the unprecedented step to call for abandoning heritability studies and their constituent findings. We show that their call for an “end to heritability studies” was premature, misleading, and entirely without merit. Specifically, we trace the history of behavioral genetics and show that 1) the Burt and Simons critique dates back 40 years and has been subject to a broad array of empirical investigations, 2) the violation of assumptions in twin models does not invalidate their results, and 3) Burt and Simons created a distorted and highly misleading portrait of behavioral genetics and those who use quantitative genetic approaches.     

SILENCE AND MEMORY IN CRIMINOLOGY—THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY 2009 SUTHERLAND ADDRESS*

Two recent American Society of Criminology presidential addresses have identified as a key problem the fact that criminology lacks a history. In this address, I ask why criminology (in contrast to closely related fields) has generated so few studies of its past; I also identify some results of this failure and discuss why intellectual fields need a sense of their origins and development. History molds individual and collective identities; it lays a foundation for sociologies of knowledge; it encourages reflexivity, teaches us where our ideas came from, and gives us a sense of where we are going. To encourage historical work, I propose an overall framework for understanding the evolution of criminology, reaching back to the late eighteenth century and continuing into the present. My overall framework is that of scientific modernism, within which I identify the following three primary phases: exploratory modernism, confident modernism, and agonistic modernism. In conclusion, I suggest ways to stimulate histories of science in the field of criminology.     

CONSTITUTIVE CRIMINOLOGY: THE MATURATION OF CRITICAL THEORY*

This paper synthesizes recent trends in the development of critical criminology into a new theoretical direction in thinking about crime. It rejects approaches to criminological theory that reduce crime to an outcome of micro causes or macro contexts. It suggests instead that thinking about crime should be reconsidered as the coterminous discursive production by human agents of an ideology of crime that sustains it as a concrete reality. It argues that this coproduction occurs when agents act out criminal patterns, when others seek to control criminal behavior, and when yet others attempt to research, philosophize about, and explain crime. The paper argues that reducing crime will only come about with a reduction of investment by human agents in the ideology of crime production. Such a reflexive re-conceptualization requires the development of a replacement discourse, rather than an oppositional one, a peacemaking discourse rather than a conflicting one. We call this new theoretical direction constitutive criminology.     

THE NEW CRIMINOLOGY IS THE OLD SENTIMENTALITY

The New Criminology is neither new nor criminology, merely sentimental overidentification with the underdog masquerading as science. This sentimentality appeals to students of crime only because criminology has traditionally been sympathetic to the underdog. The hypotheses of discriminatory law enforcement and of white-collar immorality reflect such sympathy. The millenarial hopes of the New Criminology are illusory. That justice is imperfect even in relatively decent societies is no excuse for embracing nihilism or for giving up the attempt to maintain social order.