Theoretische Criminologie Samenvatting
Week 1, H1: The context and consequences of theory:
The search for answers to the crime problem is not so easy. In the media, crime is often exaggerated
and sensationalized.
A lot of crime victims do not report the crime to the police.
Self-report surveys indicate that the vast majority of people have engaged in some degree of
illegality.
Other forms of crime don’t come to the attention of the police because they don’t happen on the
street, such as child abuse or spousal assault. White-collar crime is another form of crime that usually
stays hidden for long.
This is all about the US ^
Making a cross-cultural comparison is difficult; nations differ in what they consider to be illegal and
differ in their methods of collecting crime data.
The crime rates in the US differ immensely from city to city.
As society changes it is inevitable that our image of crime changes as well. Some theories matter
because they promote or justify the use of some crime-control policies but not others.
Many Americans believe that crime is caused by unemployment, bad family life or lenient courts.
Citizens have their own theory on criminal behaviour. Social experiences shape the ways in which
people come to think about crime. Social context plays a critical role in nourishing certain ways of
theorizing about crime.
When it comes to reducing crime, there is a relationship between theory and policy. When theory
suggests crime comes from economic deprivation, than providing job training would be a solution.
But when theory suggests offenders are mentally ill, you should treat them through psychotherapy.
The classical school argued that the criminal law could be reformed so that it would be fair and just
punitive enough to dissuade people from breaking the law. (Rational choice and deterrence)
The positivist school emphasized the scientific study of criminals (Lombroso). A criminal path was
determined by biological factors.
The Chicago school rose by pioneering the study of urban areas and crime. Control theory,
differential association theory and the anomie-strain theory were developed. These 3 theories are
sometimes called mainstream criminology.
Critical criminology developed the labelling theory, conflicts and radical scholars theorists, feminist
theory and the theories of white-collar crime.
Conservative explanations of crime are theories that suggest that the answer to crime rests largely in
harsher sanctions.
Contemporary criminological theory is a mixture of ole and new ways of thinking.
HC1:
Elementen van een theorie kunnen herkennen en benoemen.
Het verklaringsniveau van een theorie herkennen en benoemen.
Kennis hebben over de criteria waarom theorieën kunnen worden beoordeeld.
Wetenschappelijke theorieën zijn voorlopige antwoorden op kennisvragen, gebaseerd op
nauwkeurig omschreven samenhangen tussen observeerbare gebeurtenissen.
,- Voorlopig want nieuw empirisch onderzoek kan nieuwe feiten opleveren.
- Kennisvraag worden op een bepaald moment als probleem ervaren. Het antwoord op kennisvragen
zijn vaak het startpunt van handelen.
- Een theorie moet nauwkeurig omschreven zijn om daar hypothese van af te kunnen leiden.
- Operationaliseerbaard: moeten toetsbaar gemaakt kunnen worden.
Elementen van een theorie:
- Object (wie?): de eenheden waarover de theorie uitspraak doet. (Steekproefkader)
- Explanans (waarom?): de ‘verklaring’, het mechanisme. ((On)volledige weergave van theoretische
concepten)
- Explanandum (wat?): dat wat de theorie verklaard
VB: Jongens met delinquente vrienden zijn vaker zelf delinquent.
Operationalisatie: het vertalen van theoretische eigenschappen in waarneembare feiten.
Verklaringsniveaus:
- Micro-theorieën: individuele kenmerken/verschillen. Object is individu.
- Macro-theorieën: samenleving en groepspatronen in crimineel gedrag. Omgeving centraal. Object is
groep.
Ecologische fout: een verband op macroniveau wordt direct zonder toetsing doorgetrokken op
individueel niveau. Ooievaars vs babygeboortes. Illegale migranten die zich vestigen in wijken waar al
veel criminaliteit is, betekend dus niet dat zij de oorzaak zijn van de criminaliteit.
Causaliteit:
Nodig: zonder X komt Y niet voor.
Voldoende: Y komt altijd voor bij X.
Geen enkele crimi theorie voldoet aan deze beide eisen. Daarom soft determinisme, X verhoogt de
kans op uitkomst Y, er is samenhang, maar de samenhang is nooit perfect.
Theorieën van het wetenschappelijk proces:
- Empirisme: ontwikkelen en testen van theorieën op basis van de empirische werkelijkheid.
- Objectiviteit: werken met instrumenten die precies en valide zijn en eindoordeel gebaseerd op
resultaten niet op persoonlijke overtuiging.
- Scepticisme: ook eigen conclusies zijn niet permanent maar tentatief
- Zuinigheid: reduceren aantal mogelijke verklaringen van bepaald gedrag.
Karl Popper: Probleem -> theorie -> onderzoek
Kennistekort omtrent bepaald verschijnsel -> voorlopige oplossing -> observeren empirie
Vereisten theorie:
Logische consistentie
Indeling van de theorieën op basis van:
- Object: mensen, jongeren, mannen
- Explanans: Biologie, psychologie, sociologie
- Explanandum: type criminaliteit, verklaringsniveau
- Chronologie:
- Sociale context:
, Week 2, H2: The search for the ‘criminal man’:
Theories influence the policies and practices found in criminal justice systems. And explanations of
crime are influenced by the social context from which they come.
The bends in today’s trends that will affect the way we live tomorrow = crimewarps (Bennet)
Crime trends are very hard to predict accurately. It is impossible to understand criminological
theories outside of the social context.
Early theories tend to locate the cause of crime within individuals, not in demographic shifts.
Spiritualism:
People who committed crime were thought to be possessed by evil spirits/sinful demons. Originally
crime was a private matter between victim and offender. There was a problem of justice, a guilty
offender with a strong family might never get punished. Other methods were created to deal with
those accused of crimes. E.g. people would be tied up and thrown into a river, if they’d float they
believed in god and were innocent. And still today some people refer to things happening as ‘the
devil’s work’.
Spiritualistic explanations cannot be tested scientifically. For modern theories we look for
explanations based on the physical world, natural explanations.
The classical school:
A criminal is a person, capable of calculating what he or she wants to do. They calculate risks and
rewards involved in their actions. Therefore punishment should be suited to the offense, not the
social of physical characteristics of the criminal.
Beccaria came up with a system to punish criminals. Offenders should be punished by the criminal
law of a nation. Presumption of innocence should be the guiding principle. Criminal law code should
be written and should define all offenses and punishments in advance. Punishments should be
limited. Punishment should correspond with the seriousness of the crime. Punishment should be
inflicted quickly etc.
Week 2, H12: Bringing punishment back in:
Crime is attributed to individual choice.
Inequality (gender, race) in de US lead to attitude and behaviour changes. Society changed due to the
embrace of materialism and the war on drugs.
Changes such as the great recession in 2006 also had a large impact on society.
Conservative criminology: Crime occurs because in our society it ‘pays’. The benefit exceeds the cost.
They resaw the ideas of the classical school (rational choice). Crime is seen as a choice.
Crime and human nature theory: Wilson and Herrnstein:
Return of individualistic explanatioins of crime. Constitutional factors, some of which are genetic,
were predisposing individuals to engage in criminal behaviour.
This is partly similar to the ideas of the positivist school. W & H thought that bad families produced
bad children. According to W & H there is a genetic connection to crime.
But their theory also had a lot of critique, they focused too much on street crime and not on white
collar crime e.g. They also might have been selective in what they reviewed.
They tried to bring biology back into criminology.
Week 1, H1: The context and consequences of theory:
The search for answers to the crime problem is not so easy. In the media, crime is often exaggerated
and sensationalized.
A lot of crime victims do not report the crime to the police.
Self-report surveys indicate that the vast majority of people have engaged in some degree of
illegality.
Other forms of crime don’t come to the attention of the police because they don’t happen on the
street, such as child abuse or spousal assault. White-collar crime is another form of crime that usually
stays hidden for long.
This is all about the US ^
Making a cross-cultural comparison is difficult; nations differ in what they consider to be illegal and
differ in their methods of collecting crime data.
The crime rates in the US differ immensely from city to city.
As society changes it is inevitable that our image of crime changes as well. Some theories matter
because they promote or justify the use of some crime-control policies but not others.
Many Americans believe that crime is caused by unemployment, bad family life or lenient courts.
Citizens have their own theory on criminal behaviour. Social experiences shape the ways in which
people come to think about crime. Social context plays a critical role in nourishing certain ways of
theorizing about crime.
When it comes to reducing crime, there is a relationship between theory and policy. When theory
suggests crime comes from economic deprivation, than providing job training would be a solution.
But when theory suggests offenders are mentally ill, you should treat them through psychotherapy.
The classical school argued that the criminal law could be reformed so that it would be fair and just
punitive enough to dissuade people from breaking the law. (Rational choice and deterrence)
The positivist school emphasized the scientific study of criminals (Lombroso). A criminal path was
determined by biological factors.
The Chicago school rose by pioneering the study of urban areas and crime. Control theory,
differential association theory and the anomie-strain theory were developed. These 3 theories are
sometimes called mainstream criminology.
Critical criminology developed the labelling theory, conflicts and radical scholars theorists, feminist
theory and the theories of white-collar crime.
Conservative explanations of crime are theories that suggest that the answer to crime rests largely in
harsher sanctions.
Contemporary criminological theory is a mixture of ole and new ways of thinking.
HC1:
Elementen van een theorie kunnen herkennen en benoemen.
Het verklaringsniveau van een theorie herkennen en benoemen.
Kennis hebben over de criteria waarom theorieën kunnen worden beoordeeld.
Wetenschappelijke theorieën zijn voorlopige antwoorden op kennisvragen, gebaseerd op
nauwkeurig omschreven samenhangen tussen observeerbare gebeurtenissen.
,- Voorlopig want nieuw empirisch onderzoek kan nieuwe feiten opleveren.
- Kennisvraag worden op een bepaald moment als probleem ervaren. Het antwoord op kennisvragen
zijn vaak het startpunt van handelen.
- Een theorie moet nauwkeurig omschreven zijn om daar hypothese van af te kunnen leiden.
- Operationaliseerbaard: moeten toetsbaar gemaakt kunnen worden.
Elementen van een theorie:
- Object (wie?): de eenheden waarover de theorie uitspraak doet. (Steekproefkader)
- Explanans (waarom?): de ‘verklaring’, het mechanisme. ((On)volledige weergave van theoretische
concepten)
- Explanandum (wat?): dat wat de theorie verklaard
VB: Jongens met delinquente vrienden zijn vaker zelf delinquent.
Operationalisatie: het vertalen van theoretische eigenschappen in waarneembare feiten.
Verklaringsniveaus:
- Micro-theorieën: individuele kenmerken/verschillen. Object is individu.
- Macro-theorieën: samenleving en groepspatronen in crimineel gedrag. Omgeving centraal. Object is
groep.
Ecologische fout: een verband op macroniveau wordt direct zonder toetsing doorgetrokken op
individueel niveau. Ooievaars vs babygeboortes. Illegale migranten die zich vestigen in wijken waar al
veel criminaliteit is, betekend dus niet dat zij de oorzaak zijn van de criminaliteit.
Causaliteit:
Nodig: zonder X komt Y niet voor.
Voldoende: Y komt altijd voor bij X.
Geen enkele crimi theorie voldoet aan deze beide eisen. Daarom soft determinisme, X verhoogt de
kans op uitkomst Y, er is samenhang, maar de samenhang is nooit perfect.
Theorieën van het wetenschappelijk proces:
- Empirisme: ontwikkelen en testen van theorieën op basis van de empirische werkelijkheid.
- Objectiviteit: werken met instrumenten die precies en valide zijn en eindoordeel gebaseerd op
resultaten niet op persoonlijke overtuiging.
- Scepticisme: ook eigen conclusies zijn niet permanent maar tentatief
- Zuinigheid: reduceren aantal mogelijke verklaringen van bepaald gedrag.
Karl Popper: Probleem -> theorie -> onderzoek
Kennistekort omtrent bepaald verschijnsel -> voorlopige oplossing -> observeren empirie
Vereisten theorie:
Logische consistentie
Indeling van de theorieën op basis van:
- Object: mensen, jongeren, mannen
- Explanans: Biologie, psychologie, sociologie
- Explanandum: type criminaliteit, verklaringsniveau
- Chronologie:
- Sociale context:
, Week 2, H2: The search for the ‘criminal man’:
Theories influence the policies and practices found in criminal justice systems. And explanations of
crime are influenced by the social context from which they come.
The bends in today’s trends that will affect the way we live tomorrow = crimewarps (Bennet)
Crime trends are very hard to predict accurately. It is impossible to understand criminological
theories outside of the social context.
Early theories tend to locate the cause of crime within individuals, not in demographic shifts.
Spiritualism:
People who committed crime were thought to be possessed by evil spirits/sinful demons. Originally
crime was a private matter between victim and offender. There was a problem of justice, a guilty
offender with a strong family might never get punished. Other methods were created to deal with
those accused of crimes. E.g. people would be tied up and thrown into a river, if they’d float they
believed in god and were innocent. And still today some people refer to things happening as ‘the
devil’s work’.
Spiritualistic explanations cannot be tested scientifically. For modern theories we look for
explanations based on the physical world, natural explanations.
The classical school:
A criminal is a person, capable of calculating what he or she wants to do. They calculate risks and
rewards involved in their actions. Therefore punishment should be suited to the offense, not the
social of physical characteristics of the criminal.
Beccaria came up with a system to punish criminals. Offenders should be punished by the criminal
law of a nation. Presumption of innocence should be the guiding principle. Criminal law code should
be written and should define all offenses and punishments in advance. Punishments should be
limited. Punishment should correspond with the seriousness of the crime. Punishment should be
inflicted quickly etc.
Week 2, H12: Bringing punishment back in:
Crime is attributed to individual choice.
Inequality (gender, race) in de US lead to attitude and behaviour changes. Society changed due to the
embrace of materialism and the war on drugs.
Changes such as the great recession in 2006 also had a large impact on society.
Conservative criminology: Crime occurs because in our society it ‘pays’. The benefit exceeds the cost.
They resaw the ideas of the classical school (rational choice). Crime is seen as a choice.
Crime and human nature theory: Wilson and Herrnstein:
Return of individualistic explanatioins of crime. Constitutional factors, some of which are genetic,
were predisposing individuals to engage in criminal behaviour.
This is partly similar to the ideas of the positivist school. W & H thought that bad families produced
bad children. According to W & H there is a genetic connection to crime.
But their theory also had a lot of critique, they focused too much on street crime and not on white
collar crime e.g. They also might have been selective in what they reviewed.
They tried to bring biology back into criminology.
