Criminology

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Criminology draws its name from two ancient roots: the Latin crimen, meaning accusation, and the Greek logos, meaning word or reason. That pairing hints at something essential about the field. It is a discipline built around asking why. Why do people break rules? Why do some communities produce far more crime than others? Why does punishment sometimes deter and sometimes make no difference at all? These are not simple questions, and criminology does not offer simple answers.

  The field pulls together sociologists, psychologists, economists, political scientists, lawyers, biologists, and social anthropologists, among others. No single perspective owns the problem. Criminologists study the nature of crime and the personalities of those who commit it. They investigate how criminal law originates and how it changes over time. They examine how courts, prisons, police forces, and social agencies actually function. And they probe the most fundamental question of all: what turns a person toward lawbreaking in the first place?

  The term criminology itself was most likely coined in 1885 by an Italian law professor named Raffaele Garofalo. The discipline he helped name would spend the next century and a half fracturing into competing schools, reconciling, fracturing again, and expanding into territory its founders could not have imagined.

• 2. Where the Field Began

  ›

  Raffaele Garofalo coined the term criminology in 1885, but the intellectual roots of the field reach back further, to the Italian School of criminal anthropology that took shape in the 19th century. The historian Mary Gibson described its effect bluntly: the Italian School caused a radical shift in criminological discussion throughout Europe and the United States, moving the focus away from law and toward the criminal as a subject of study in his own right.

  Cesare Lombroso, born in 1835 and dying in 1909, stands at the center of that school. Often called the father of criminology, Lombroso insisted on empirical evidence and a scientific approach at a time when most thinking about crime was philosophical or legal. His own conclusions, however, were deeply flawed. He argued that physiological traits such as cheekbone measurements, hairline shape, or a cleft palate could indicate what he called atavistic criminal tendencies, the idea that criminals were evolutionary throwbacks. That theory drew on phrenology and on Charles Darwin's work, and it has since been entirely discredited. Lombroso's studies lacked control groups, a methodological failure his successors recognized.

  Enrico Ferri, a student of Lombroso, moved the field in a more nuanced direction by arguing that social factors mattered alongside biological ones. He also held that criminals should not be held responsible when the causes of their behavior lay beyond their control. That tension between internal and external causes of crime would drive criminological debate for the next hundred years.

  The Classical School had actually preceded Lombroso, emerging in the mid-18th century from utilitarian philosophy. Cesare Beccaria published On Crimes and Punishments in 1763-64, arguing that punishment should deter rather than simply avenge, that it should be proportionate and prompt, and that actual harms rather than criminal intent should determine severity. Jeremy Bentham, who invented the panopticon, developed these ideas further. This school took shape during a period of major legal reform, the French Revolution, and the construction of the early American legal system.

• 3. American Criminology's Growth

  ›

  In the United States, criminology expanded substantially in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Between 1900 and 2000, scholars have identified three distinct phases in how the field developed. The first, running from 1900 to 1930, is called the Golden Age of Research and is characterized by a multiple-factor approach to understanding crime. The second, from 1930 to 1960, became the Golden Age of Theory, focused on connecting research findings to systematic theoretical frameworks. The third phase, from 1960 to 2000, is seen as a turning point when criminology began pulling away from its longtime home inside sociology.

  Federal money accelerated that separation. Programs such as the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and the Law Enforcement Education Program poured funding into academic training for policing and corrections during a period of social unrest. Standalone criminal justice programs multiplied rapidly at universities, and many sociologists viewed these new programs as weaker and less theoretically grounded than the sociology departments they had left behind.

  The tension grew pointed enough that in 1963, some educators split from the American Society of Criminology to form what would eventually become, in 1970, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. By the 1990s, however, the two streams had moved toward reconciliation. Criminal justice majors became enormously popular with students, and universities found them financially attractive, sometimes referring to them informally as academic cash cows. Graduate programs multiplied: by the end of the 1990s, more than 100 master's programs and at least 25 doctoral programs existed across the country.

  The journal Criminology and Public Policy launched in 2001, founded by the American Society of Criminology with its first editor, Todd Clear, a former president of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. By 2020, nearly 50 criminology doctoral programs operated in the United States and Canada, and the National Research Council had identified criminology as an emerging discipline since 2006.

• 4. Cities, Subcultures, and Social Forces

  ›

  Robert E. Park, Ernest Burgess, and their colleagues at the University of Chicago shaped an entire generation of thinking about crime and cities in the early twentieth century. In the 1920s, Park and Burgess mapped cities as a series of five concentric zones, with the innermost ring of transition identified as the most volatile and disorder-prone. In the 1940s, Henry McKay and Clifford R. Shaw followed up by showing that juvenile delinquents clustered heavily in that transitional zone.

  The Chicago School's key insight was that urban environments with high poverty tend to experience a breakdown in the institutions that normally regulate behavior, particularly families and schools. That breakdown produces social disorganization, and social disorganization creates conditions where deviant behavior becomes more likely. William Julius Wilson extended this line of thinking by proposing a poverty concentration effect, suggesting that as working and middle-class residents leave deteriorating neighborhoods, the remaining population becomes isolated from mainstream society and more prone to violence.

  Edwin Sutherland offered a complementary explanation focused not on environment alone but on learning. His theory of differential association holds that people become delinquent because they are exposed to an excess of attitudes favorable to breaking the law over attitudes against it. Surrounding oneself with people who condone or justify crime, under his framework, increases the likelihood of adopting those views. Criminal behavior, once reinforced, tends to become chronic.

  Robert Merton's strain theory, which he sometimes called Mertonian Anomie, pushed in a different direction. Merton argued that American culture saturates people with what he called the American Dream, a set of aspirations around opportunity, freedom, and prosperity. When the actual structure of society prevents most people from achieving that dream through legitimate means, some turn to crime as an alternative route. Others retreat entirely, dropping into deviant subcultures. Robert Agnew later expanded strain theory to include forms of pressure beyond financial frustration.

• 5. Labels, Power, and Moral Panic

  ›

  Howard Becker and Edwin Lemert developed labeling theory in the mid-20th century, building on the symbolic interactionism of Edmund Husserl and George Herbert Mead. The central argument is that when society labels someone a criminal, that label can reshape the person's identity. Even those who initially resist the label may eventually accept it, especially as the stigma spreads among peers. That acceptance can then lead to what labeling theorists call deviancy amplification: the label produces more of the behavior it was meant to describe.

  The broader symbolic interactionist school examined how powerful groups, including state institutions and media organizations, impose their definitions of criminality onto less powerful groups. Minor acts of delinquency among young people could be reframed as serious criminal behavior through this process of labeling, setting off what became known as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  Stanley Cohen gave this dynamic a name: moral panic. He used the concept to describe the way societies react with disproportionate alarm to certain social phenomena. His examples included the conflicts between the Mods and Rockers in the United Kingdom in 1964, the AIDS epidemic, and football hooliganism.

  At the other end of the spectrum from labeling sits the work of criminologist Lonnie Athens, whose research traced how brutalization in childhood by parents or peers produces violent behavior in adulthood. Richard Rhodes documented Athens' observations in Why They Kill. Both Athens and Rhodes explicitly rejected theories rooted in genetic inheritance, locating the cause of violence in lived experience rather than biology.

• 6. Rational Choice and Opportunity

  ›

  Gary Becker's 1965 article Crime and Punishment and George Stigler's 1970 article The Optimum Enforcement of Laws helped revive classical rational choice thinking after decades of dormancy. James Q. Wilson also contributed to this revival in the 1970s. The core claim is that criminals, like other economic actors, weigh expected costs against expected benefits. The probability of being caught, the severity of punishment, and the available alternatives all factor into that calculation.

  Gary Becker acknowledged that most people operate under significant moral constraints. But he argued that those who commit crimes have rationally concluded that the benefits outweigh the risks. From a policy standpoint, that logic leads to a specific recommendation: since the cost of raising a fine is far lower than the cost of expanding surveillance, the most efficient deterrent is a heavy penalty combined with minimal policing resources. Whether that conclusion matches how real human psychology works remains a subject of debate.

  One pointed illustration appears in the source: if a supermarket is losing 25 percent of its goods to theft, reducing that to 15 percent is straightforward, and cutting it to 5 percent is manageable. But pushing below 3 percent becomes very difficult, and eliminating theft entirely would cost far more than the losses it prevents. This example captures what Becker's framework acknowledges that Bentham's earlier version did not: crime cannot be eradicated, only managed to an economically rational minimum.

  Marcus Felson and Lawrence Cohen developed routine activity theory as a parallel framework, arguing that a crime requires three elements converging at the same time and place: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian. Ordinary pedestrians count as guardians, not just security personnel. John Eck later added a fourth element, the place manager, such as a property owner who can take steps to reduce criminal opportunities in a specific location. Mike Sutton's Market Reduction Approach built on these ideas to develop a toolkit for targeting the stolen-goods markets that motivate theft in the first place.

• 7. Marxist and Convict Perspectives

  ›

  In 1968, a group of young British sociologists formed the National Deviance Conference, a restricted academic group of 300 members. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young were among its members, and in their work The New Criminology they directly challenged the biological positivism associated with Lombroso, Hans Eysenck, and Gordon Trasler. Their Marxist criminological approach reframed deviance as a normal expression of human diversity rather than a pathology. They argued that crime is produced not by genetics or psychology but by the material conditions of a given society.

  The Marxist school treats state crime as one of the most costly categories of criminal harm, measured in overall injury to society. Genocides, environmental degradation, and war are understood not as failures of individual morality but as crimes of power, serving to maintain systems of control and domination.

  Convict criminology emerged as a separate school of thought following the major expansion of American prisons in the 1970s. Researchers such as John Irwin and Stephan Richards argued that the criminal justice system can be better understood by people who have lived inside it. Martin Leyva contributed the observation that what he called prisonization often begins before prison, in homes, communities, and schools. Rod Earle has noted that the United States remains the primary focus of this field, a reflection of the scale of American incarceration.

• 8. Emerging Fields and Ongoing Questions

  ›

  Queer criminology examines how LGBT individuals interact with the criminal justice system. Its goals include understanding the history of laws targeting LGBT communities, investigating whether and why LGBT individuals face higher arrest rates than heterosexual and cisgender people, and studying how queer activists have contested those laws. The field remains contested within criminology: some scholars argue it is peripheral to the discipline's core concerns, while others see its focus on liberation rather than surveillance as a necessary corrective. A sub-discipline called digiqueer criminology has emerged to examine the intersection of digital technology, LGBTQ+ identity, and justice. Meanwhile, in jurisdictions including Russia, Uganda, and Ghana, governments have moved toward expanded criminalization of LGBTQ+ conduct and organizing.

  Ultra-realism is a 21st-century school that straddles criminology and zemiology, the study of social harm. Its early proponents, Steve Hall and Simon Winlow, introduced concepts including the pseudo-pacification process, special liberty, and objectless anxiety, ideas that began taking shape from the mid-1990s onward. Ultra-realist researchers work across a remarkably wide range of topics, from deviant leisure and consumer culture to riots, far-right politics, homicide, and investment fraud.

  Rural criminology, informed by both social disorganization theory and routine activity theory, has drawn on FBI Uniform Crime Report data to show that crime patterns in rural communities differ substantially from those in metropolitan areas. Narcotic-related crimes, including production, use, and trafficking, make up a dominant share of rural crime, driven partly by low educational opportunities and high unemployment. Public criminology, a related strand, pushes academic researchers to bring their findings to affected communities and policymakers rather than keeping them inside scholarly journals. The aspiration of the pseudo-pacification concept, that ordinary people might understand the structural forces producing crime in their own lives, points toward the work that public criminologists argue still needs to be done.