Notes made from Newburn. T: Chapter 1: Understanding crime and criminology
In an analysis of the emergence and development of criminology in Britain, David Gardland (2002:8)
introduces the subject in the following way
‘ I take criminology to be a specific genre of discourse and inquiry about crime- a genre that has developed
in the modern period and that can be distinguished from other ways of talking and thinking about criminal
conduct’
He argues that modern criminology is the product of TWO initially separate streams of work
The ‘governmental project’: The ‘Lombrosian project’:
Empirical studies of the Studies which sought to examine
administration of justice, the the characteristics of ‘criminals’ and
working of prisons, police and the non-criminals’ with a view to being
measurement of crime able to distinguish the groups:
thereby developing an
understanding of the causes of
crime
An interdisciplinary subject
Many disciplinary approaches that are utilised within criminology
Will come across work from psychologists/sociologists/ lawyers/historians etc
Different disciplines have been dominant at different points in the history of criminology
David Dowes described criminology as a ‘rendezvous subject’ : it is an area of study that
brings together scholars from a various of disciplinary origins
Criminological work tends to be more theoretically informed than criminal justice studies
It is more concerned with crime and its causes
Both have clear concerns with the criminal justice and penal systems
Lacey (2002: 265) suggests that criminology ‘concerns itself with social and individual
antecedents of crime and with the nature of crime as a social phenomenon’ whereas
criminal justice studies ‘deal with the specifically institutional aspects of the social
construction of crime’ (e.g. policing)
Defining criminology
Edwin Sutherland: defined criminology as the study of the making of laws, the breaking of
laws, and of society’s reaction to the breaking of laws.
The three great tributaries that make up the subject:
1. The study of crime
2. The study of those who commit crime
3. The study of the criminal justice and penal systems
Sutherland (1937): the ‘objective of criminology is the development of a body of general and
verified principles and of other types of knowledge regarding the process of law, crime, and
treatment of prevention’
, Four major lines of criticism:
1. Crime has no ontological reality
2. Criminology perpetuates the myth of crime
3. Crime consists of many petty events
4. Crime excludes many serious harm
Understanding crime
Identifying the boundary between acts that are crimes, and acts which are not crimes is
often far from straightforward
E.g. The Spanner Case
Crime and the criminal law
Within the criminal law – a crime is a conduct or an act of omission which when it results in
certain consequences may lead to prosecution and punishment in a criminal court
Zedner (2004) observes various problems with this :the legal classification does not help tell
us why certain conduct is defined as criminal – it just merely helps identify it.
In relation to white collar crime: Sutherland felt that our attention as criminologist s should
not be limited to those acts that would be punished by the criminal law.
Crime as a social construct
This position suggests that crime is something that is the product of culturally-bounded
social interaction. It is a label applied under certain circumstances to certain acts or
omissions.
Edwin Schur (1969:10) noted: ‘Once we recognise that crime is defined by the criminal law
and is therefore variable in content, we see quite clearly that no explanation of crime that
limits itself to the motivation and behaviour of individuals can ever be a complete one’
(criminal law varies >often v.significantly from country to country which makes it clear that
there is nothing given about crime)
Labelling theory: as its own label > therefore places primary emphasis on the definitional
power of the application of levels: the label ‘criminal’. It distances itself from the view that
defining someone as a criminal represents some natural order of events rather than
analysing such processes as illustrations of the use of power by the state.
A radical version of social constructionism > Nils Christie (2004:3) argues: Crime does not
exist. Only acts exist, acts often given different meanings within various social frameworks.
Acts and the meanings given to them are our data. Our challenge is to follow the destiny of
acts through the universe of meanings. Particularly, what are the social conditions that
encourage or prevent giving the acts the meaning of being crime?
Historical variations
Looking at how our treatment of certain behaviours varies, often considerably, over time.
The Abortion Act 1967 made it possible for women, under specific circumstances, to have a
pregnancy terminated. Prior to 1967 abortion was illegal.
2004 (in the Irish Republic): not possible to smoke in pubs (same in England from the 1st July
2007)
In an analysis of the emergence and development of criminology in Britain, David Gardland (2002:8)
introduces the subject in the following way
‘ I take criminology to be a specific genre of discourse and inquiry about crime- a genre that has developed
in the modern period and that can be distinguished from other ways of talking and thinking about criminal
conduct’
He argues that modern criminology is the product of TWO initially separate streams of work
The ‘governmental project’: The ‘Lombrosian project’:
Empirical studies of the Studies which sought to examine
administration of justice, the the characteristics of ‘criminals’ and
working of prisons, police and the non-criminals’ with a view to being
measurement of crime able to distinguish the groups:
thereby developing an
understanding of the causes of
crime
An interdisciplinary subject
Many disciplinary approaches that are utilised within criminology
Will come across work from psychologists/sociologists/ lawyers/historians etc
Different disciplines have been dominant at different points in the history of criminology
David Dowes described criminology as a ‘rendezvous subject’ : it is an area of study that
brings together scholars from a various of disciplinary origins
Criminological work tends to be more theoretically informed than criminal justice studies
It is more concerned with crime and its causes
Both have clear concerns with the criminal justice and penal systems
Lacey (2002: 265) suggests that criminology ‘concerns itself with social and individual
antecedents of crime and with the nature of crime as a social phenomenon’ whereas
criminal justice studies ‘deal with the specifically institutional aspects of the social
construction of crime’ (e.g. policing)
Defining criminology
Edwin Sutherland: defined criminology as the study of the making of laws, the breaking of
laws, and of society’s reaction to the breaking of laws.
The three great tributaries that make up the subject:
1. The study of crime
2. The study of those who commit crime
3. The study of the criminal justice and penal systems
Sutherland (1937): the ‘objective of criminology is the development of a body of general and
verified principles and of other types of knowledge regarding the process of law, crime, and
treatment of prevention’
, Four major lines of criticism:
1. Crime has no ontological reality
2. Criminology perpetuates the myth of crime
3. Crime consists of many petty events
4. Crime excludes many serious harm
Understanding crime
Identifying the boundary between acts that are crimes, and acts which are not crimes is
often far from straightforward
E.g. The Spanner Case
Crime and the criminal law
Within the criminal law – a crime is a conduct or an act of omission which when it results in
certain consequences may lead to prosecution and punishment in a criminal court
Zedner (2004) observes various problems with this :the legal classification does not help tell
us why certain conduct is defined as criminal – it just merely helps identify it.
In relation to white collar crime: Sutherland felt that our attention as criminologist s should
not be limited to those acts that would be punished by the criminal law.
Crime as a social construct
This position suggests that crime is something that is the product of culturally-bounded
social interaction. It is a label applied under certain circumstances to certain acts or
omissions.
Edwin Schur (1969:10) noted: ‘Once we recognise that crime is defined by the criminal law
and is therefore variable in content, we see quite clearly that no explanation of crime that
limits itself to the motivation and behaviour of individuals can ever be a complete one’
(criminal law varies >often v.significantly from country to country which makes it clear that
there is nothing given about crime)
Labelling theory: as its own label > therefore places primary emphasis on the definitional
power of the application of levels: the label ‘criminal’. It distances itself from the view that
defining someone as a criminal represents some natural order of events rather than
analysing such processes as illustrations of the use of power by the state.
A radical version of social constructionism > Nils Christie (2004:3) argues: Crime does not
exist. Only acts exist, acts often given different meanings within various social frameworks.
Acts and the meanings given to them are our data. Our challenge is to follow the destiny of
acts through the universe of meanings. Particularly, what are the social conditions that
encourage or prevent giving the acts the meaning of being crime?
Historical variations
Looking at how our treatment of certain behaviours varies, often considerably, over time.
The Abortion Act 1967 made it possible for women, under specific circumstances, to have a
pregnancy terminated. Prior to 1967 abortion was illegal.
2004 (in the Irish Republic): not possible to smoke in pubs (same in England from the 1st July
2007)
