Lecture 1: what is criminology?
-What is a criminologist?
-What is criminology?
-What is crime?
-Who is the criminal?
What is a criminologist?
A good criminologist needs to:
-Be a critical enquirer(onderzoeker): curiosity! What is explained, what is neglected? What is the
argument? Any gaps or alternative explanations? Who defines/ describes crime (and who lacks a
voice in that)?
-Be reflective: how do I look at things, how am I biased? What group(s) do I belong to, what power of
definition do we have? What groups do I have prejudices against? Am I open to (at least) doubt?
-Be pragmatic, thorough (in choice and referencing of materials), digitally competent etc. etc.
-Frank Furedi: curiosity, openness, ask, criticize, be involved.. and above all: DON’T
SUCCUMB(bezwijken) TO ACADEMIC (OR OTHER) CYNICISM!
What is criminology?
-‘at its widest and most commonly accepted [it] is taken to be the study of crime, criminals and
criminal justice’ (Carrabine et al 2014: 2)
-‘Criminology is the study of crime, justice, and law and order issues, and the broader dynamics of
societies in terms of informing how those things exist and are experienced’ (Murphy, p. 6)
-… so: the study of crime and reactions to it, within it’s particular context.
-In its origins an applied science (originally): governmental concerns directed the research agenda!
(toegepaste wetenschap ook om overheid te helpen. Overheidsbelangen sturen criminologische
agenda)
-Criminology as an object science (omdat verschillende disciplines (o.m. biologie, sociologie,
antropologie en psychologie) een ander aspect van hetzelfde object (de criminele gedraging)
onderzoeken:)
-Criminology as an interdisciplinary science
Origins: (When did Criminology start? Hard to say… started as an independent science much later
than that scientists were already studying it.)
-Classical criminologist (18th century): crime as a result of free will and cost-benefit analysis
(Beccaria, Bentham) (not yet an established discipline, focused on crime and punishment. )
-First criminologists (19th century) are positivists: what contributing factors explain people
committing crimes? OR: (Positivist: From there the discipline established itself, with psychologists,
sociologists, criminal law scholars, philosophers, anthropologists etc. etc. contributing to the field. )
-What makes a ‘criminal’ different from a ‘civilised’ individual?
(‘Positivism’ refers to contributive factors of crime/ positive idea that with the help of science, we
could (re)make the world!)
(Criminal as ‘different’ – either born into, or through external factors… but not like ‘ordinary’ men.)
Criminology as an autonomous, interdisciplinary field (20th century):
-Criminography (descriptive, measuring, historical etc.)
-Aetiology (causes of crime: why it occurs)( leer der oorzaken)
, • Critical approaches (questioning definition of crime, power inequalities, workings of
criminal justice system etc.)
-Responses to crime:
• Crime prevention
• Penology (different kinds of punishment)
-Victimology
We discussed that positivist criminologists would study what makes ‘a criminal’ different from an
‘ordinary citizen’. This is also called: ‘othering’.
What is crime?
Reminder: Be a critical enquirer: curiosity! What is explained, what is neglected? What is the
argument? Any gaps or alternative explanations? Who defines/ describes crime (and who lacks a
voice in that)?
(crime: it depends on the definition of crime to know what criminologists study – and these
definitions depend on who defines it – and what are this person’s interests! Critically question power
positions!)
1. Legal definition (Murphy, p.12)
Tappan (1947: 100): ‘an intentional act or omission in violation of criminal law (statutory and case
law), committed without defence or justification, and sanctioned by the state as a felony or
misdemeanor.’
2. Sociological definition (Murphy, p.13)
-Thorsten Sellin (1938): we need a scientific (not a legal) criminology, and a scientific definition of
crime
-Search for universalities in norms and rule transgression: what things do societies generally believe
to be ‘wrong’?
-Moral/ social component: crime as a sociological problem
-‘Deviant behaviour’ as topic of study
Criminaliteit is maar één van de vele vormen van regel overtredend gedrag; of dit nou in het wetboek
van strafrecht staat of niet. Het is belangrijk dat er in de samenleving bepaalde normen en waarden
gelden. Het overtreden daarvan is crimineel. - Thorsten Selling, 1938
Verschillende samenlevingen hebben verschillende belevingen over wat goed is en wat slecht is. Hier
wordt afstand genomen van het strafrecht en wordt criminaliteit als sociologisch probleem gezien.
Niet kijken naar strafbaar gedrag maar naar deviant gedrag.
3. Social constructivist definition (Murphy, p.14)
-Howard Becker (1963): why is some behaviour criminalised, and other not?
-What is seen as crime is ‘a product of the dynamics of a given society’ (Murphy p. 14) :
*‘Social groups create deviance by making rules whose infraction creates deviance, and by applying
those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders.’ (Becker 1963)
*‘Crime (…) is behavior so defined (…) by the agents and activities of the powerful’ (Walklate 2017: 5)
,(Tip to be able to differentiate sociological and social constructivist line of definition:
-Sociological def. looks at the social norms that are transgressed (the norm itself is unproblematized
or taken for granted): what norm is transgressed;
-Social constructivist looks at why social norms exist/ came to be as they are: who defines (and why
this person)? Or: why is the norm there in the first place?)
-Louk Hulsman (1986): abolitionism: ‘Categories of ‘crime’ are given by the criminal justice system
rather than by victims of society in general. This makes it necessary to abandon the notion of ‘crime’
as a tool in the conceptual framework of criminology. Crime has no ontological reality (heeft geen
werkelijk bestaan) [and…] is not the object but the product of criminal policy.’
(So we have two definitions that look at attributing factors (fixed parameters that make someone
criminal or not – respectively law as a parameter, and social norms as a parameter); we have one
definition that looks at the defining process and the role of power. Now we will build further on that:
if we depart from unequal power relations, what definitions can we then come up with, that diagnose
crimes of the powerful?)
Definition crime:
-If power plays a role in what we define as crime (and what we criminalize)..
-...then can we think of a definition of crime that includes crimes of the powerful?
4 Human rights definition (Murphy, p. 232-237)
-Schwendinger & Schwendinger (1970): human rights as a treshold: non-respect of these rights
constitutes crime:
*‘individuals who deny these rights to others are criminal’
*‘(…) imperialism, racism, sexism and poverty can be called crimes according to the logic of our
argument.’
-Nowadays we call this: ‘social justice’
(Note: definition takes power inequalities into account – politically loaden definition, like the social
constructivist definition!)
5 Harm definition (Murphy, p. 14)
-Lynch (1992); Beirne & South (1998); Hillyard & Tombs (2007): crime is a legal construct (power!)
and is anthropocentric (too much focussed on the human species)
-‘Crime’ is the harms done to the environment, animals etc.
(Note: definition takes power inequalities into account – politically loaden definition, like the social
constructivist definition!)
!!1Thus: what constitutes ‘crime’ depends on the definition used… 2 the power struggles at play… 3
And the time and place.!!
The definition of crime is, thus, situational
(What is punishable by law in one era, is not necessarily criminal in another time; idem dito for
country/ culture. Example: homosexuality punishable in NL until 1791; death penalty! Also:
punishable behaviour of one individual might be assessed differently from another individual,
, depending on one’s position in society/ role/ etc.; crime and crime reactions, thus, are situational.
Meaning: dependent on your position/ social status and context:
You are not allowed to hit someone, but when in a boxing square, this is exactly the idea. You cannot
shoot someone, but when in the army (in a war situation) , you might have to.
-So: crime is not objectively observable, intrinsic ‘evil’, but is defined in social interaction. Is culturally
‘coloured’, and situated.)
Who is the criminal?
Cesare Lombroso (positivist, 19th century) thought you could recognize a criminal by his/ her looks!
(Lombroso’s work – he took photos of prison population and measured their facial propensities (size
of the forehead, space between the eyes etc. – craniology) and then concluded that ‘criminals’ have
some defining traits in common (high forehead, strong jaw line etc.) Theory has been falsified. Can
you point out some weaknesses in his research? Whereas Lombroso’s ideas might sound obsolete,
nowadays we still see research that has developed from this tradition: neo-positivist research into, for
example, how genetic factors, hormonal imbalances or other biological aspects can influence criminal
behavior. We also can recognize in some of this research (namely the badly executed part of this
research) the mistake of reductionism, stereotyping and tunnel vision.)
Biases and gazes in criminology
-In criminology we tend to overly focus on a certain kind of offender (‘criminological gaze’)
• Men rather than women; young rather than old; poor rather than rich, ethnic
minorities rather than ethnic majority, ‘ugly’ rather than pretty.. etc. etc.
-.. as well as a certain kind of victim (‘ideal victim’)
