Introduction To Criminology and Criminal Justice 1710286271

Introduction to Criminology and Criminal
Justice
Introduction to
Criminology and
Criminal Justice
An Australasian Perspective
GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF

CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL
JUSTICE
ADAM TURNER; ANNA L'ORANGE;

ANTOINETTE L. SMITH; CARLEY
RUIZ; CHLOE VEERMAN; DAVID
BARTLETT; DIANA MATAIA; ELENA
MORGENTHALER; EMMA GERWALD;
ISAAC ZAVELSKY; JAANA A. HAAJA;
JEFFREY ACKERMAN; JESSE CALE;
KATRINA NILSSON; LEANNE
O'NEILL; LUCY FORRESTER;
MARIANNE HAALAND; MELISSA
OSBORN; MICHAEL TOWNSLEY;
NADINE M. CONNELL;
NAKSHATHRA SURESH; NATASHA
SMITH; RACHEL DIOSO-VILLA;
SHANNON WALDING; STACY
TZOUMAKIS; STEPH FRIEND; TRACY
MEEHAN; TRISTAN RUSSELL; TROY
J. ALLARD; CARRIE ZHANG; AND
MICHAEL GLEESON
GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY
GOLD COAST, QUEENSLAND
Introduction to Criminology and Criminal Justice Copyright © 2024 by Griffith
University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.
This book was published by Griffith University via the Council of

Australian University Librarians Open Educational Resources
Collective. The online version is available at
https://oercollective.caul.edu.au/criminology-criminal-justice.
Disclaimer
Note that corporate logos and branding are specifically excluded from
the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial Licence of this
work, and may not be reproduced under any circumstances without
the express written permission of the copyright holders.
Copyright
Introduction to Criminology and Criminal Justice: An Australasian

Perspective by The Griffith University School of Criminology and
Criminal Justice is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Licence by Griffith University, except
where otherwise noted.
Additionally, permission has been sought for the following content,

which is specifically excluded from the Creative Commons Attribution
Non-Commercial 4.0 Licence of this work, and may not be reproduced
under any circumstances without the express written permission of
the copyright holders:
Cover art
• ‘Elicit the Change You Seek’ by Rachel Dioso-Villa is

licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International Licence and is
used with permission from the artist.
Chapter 2
• Weatherburn, D. (2011). Uses and abuses of crime statistics.
Crime and Justice Bulletin: Contemporary Issues in Crime
and Justice no. 153. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and
Research. https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Publications/
CJB/cjb153.pdf
Additionally, the following content is specifically excluded from the

Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 Licence of this
work, and may only be re-used under their respective licences
Chapter 1
• The Scientific Method as an Ongoing Process by

ArchonMagnus licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0
• Qualitative vs Quantitative by Jaime Anstee licensed
under CC-BY-SA 4.0
Chapter 5
• Studio Stresses: Sean by Michael Clesle is licensed under

CC-BY-NC 2.0
Additionally, some chapters contain third-party works licenced under

a variety of CC and other licences as indicated at the point of use.
Recommended citation: Griffith University School of Criminology and

Criminal Justice. (2024). Introduction to Criminology and Criminal
Justice: An Australian Perspective. Griffith University.
https://oercollective.caul.edu.au/criminology-criminal-justice
Recommended attribution: Introduction to Criminology and Criminal

Justice: An Australian Perspective by Griffith University School of
Criminology and Criminal Justice is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution Noncommercial 4.0 Licence by Griffith
University.
Contents
Acknowledgements xi
Acknowledgement of Country xiv
About the Cover xv
About the Artist xvii
About the Authors xix
Accessibility Information xx
Introduction 1
Nadine M. Connell
Part I. Main Body
1. What is Criminology? 7
Nadine M. Connell
2. What is Crime? Defining and Measuring 28
Criminal Behaviour
David Bartlett
3. Victims and Offenders 64
Jeffrey Ackerman and Marianne Haaland
4. Classical Theories of Criminology: Deterrence 97
Lucy Forrester and Carley Ruiz
5. Sociological Theories of Crime: Strain Theories 138
Tracy Meehan; Lucy Forrester; and Jaana A.
Haaja
Versioning History 159

Acknowledgements
The old adage “it takes a village,” does not even begin to
account for the amount of support and help that went taking
this textbook from an idea into a reality. This textbook didn’t
take a village; it took a giant capital city! I would like to take the
opportunity to acknowledge those who helped along the way.
Writing any textbook, expecially an open access textbook
that will not turn a profit, is an investment not only on the
part of the authors but of the institutions that support them.
This textbook would not have happened if we did not have
the institutional support at Griffith University. Griffith University
prides itself on living its values and that was evident from the
start with this project. Thank you to Professor Shaun Ewan,
Deputy Vice Chancellor (Education), and Professor Julie Robert,
Dean, Learning and Teaching (AEL). Between monetary
support to ensure that students were compensated for their
time and efforts, offering staff to help create embedded
interactive content, and always taking the opportunity to
promote the work of everyone involved in this endeavor, we
could not have asked for more enthusiastic and supportive
champions. And thank you to Griffith University Librarian
Maureen Sullivan, for your leadership and vision on the ways
that open access can improve educational opportunities and
experiences for all of our students. The support and
commitment from the Library staff is the magic glue that held
this project together.
To Craig Milne, Deputy Deputy University Librarian and Head
of Scholarly Resources and Library Campus Services, who put
the idea into my head and was always enthusastic when I
asked the hard questions. In an off-handed comment about
the difficulties finding Australian based resources, he
challenged me to rethink the way that we provide resources
Acknowledgements | xi
to our students. I’ve never been one to back away from a
challenge, so here we are. He has been an unfailing champion
of this project ever since.
When it comes to taking an idea and making it reality, there
is no equal to Bonnie Dixon, Discipline Librarian, Learning and
Teaching Services. Whether it was the nuts and bolts of
ensuring countless copyright checks and compliance with
open access textbook requirements or fielding a series of
increasingly disjointed emails (from me) at the end of the
project, she was unflappable and her calm guidance gave me
the confidence that we would, in the end, pull this project off.
She helped steer this ship every step of the way.
Closer to home, the Head of School for Criminology and
Criminal Justice, Professor Danielle Reynald, was the biggest
cheerleader for this project. Her trust, her support of all of the
academics and students who participated, and her willingness
to let me run with something that was completely new (and
definitely a little harebrained) are just some examples of her
supportive leadership. I will never forget the first time that I
explained the project to her – my enthusiasm trumped my
articulation and there may have been a moment of skepticism.
I am forever grateful for the trust and faith she placed in me to
make this project happen.
I know that every contributor to this textbook also
acknowledges mentors, supervisors, friends and family,
without whom the paths that led us here would have been
much less fulfilling. I wish I could name every single person but
it turns out, even in open access, there is such a thing as too
many words. But your support is seen and appreciated.
I would also like to acknowledge our students. Every
academic who contributed to this project has taught a class,
often an introductory class, and had the opportunity to learn as
much from you as you have from us. It is your experiences that
guide us and have given us initiative to think outside the box
about what would help you most. This is just the first step.
xii | Acknowledgements
On a personal note, I would like to thank the CCJ academic
and professional staff for everything they’ve done to support
me and this project. I especially thank Amanda O’Brien and Jarl
Martinson for always helping me find the answer, to Associate
Professor Louise Porter and School Manager Deb Waldron for
listening to regular textbook updates with more excitement
than such minutae may have deserved, and every other one
of my colleagues who took my enthusiasm in stride. And last,
I thank my cat, who takes responsibility for all typos. She really
likes to walk on a keyboard.
Associate Professor Nadine M. Connell
Deputy Head of School, Learning & Teaching
School
of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University
Queensland,
Australia
March 5, 2024
Acknowledgements | xiii
Acknowledgement of
Country
Griffith University acknowledges the people who are the
traditional custodians of the land and pays respect to the
Elders, past and present, and extends that respect to other
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
South Bank, Nathan and Mount Gravatt campuses are
situated on the land of the Yugarabul, Yuggera, Jagera and
Turrbal peoples. Logan is situated on the land of the Yuggera,
Turrbal, Yugarabul, Jagera and Yugambeh peoples. The Gold
Coast is situated on the land of the Yugambeh/Kombumerri
peoples.
Read more about the ways that Griffith University supports
First Nations students and staff here.
xiv | Acknowledgement of Country

About the Cover
“Elicit the Change You Seek” 2024
About the Cover | xv

“Elicit the Change You Seek”, 2024
Artist: Rachel Dioso-Villa, PhD
Acrylic paint, graphite and oil pastel on watercolour paper
56cm x 74cm
Artist Statement
“In this painting, I traced the lines of my palm, as I wanted

it to be as though the research and ideas contained in this
book were moving from one criminologist to the next. The
criminal justice system and criminological theories are often
said to exist in isolated silos with limited dialogue. The goal of
this book was to begin to dismantle these barriers to foster new
collaborations and discussions. Through visual representation
and mark-making, I deconstructed and reconstructed the silos,
allowing space for fresh interactions and new contributors to
step forward. The use of oil pastels and graphite line work is
meant to signify the dynamic nature of collaboration—agile
and ever-evolving. I include a central light or glow, coming
from the centre of the grouped shapes to signify that the
collective is greater than the sum of its parts, and to stress
that collaboration can yield novel, exciting, and unexpected
outcomes. My hope is that readers sense the energy infused in
this artwork and my invitation is that they embrace their own
agency and will and elicit the change they seek.”
Copyright
‘Elicit the Change you Seek’ by Rachel Dioso-Villa is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-
NoDerivs 4.0 International Licence.
xvi | About the Cover

About the Artist
Rachel Dioso-Villa, PhD
Dr. Dioso-Villa and the textbook cover art
As an emerging mixed-media artist and socio-legal scholar at

Griffith University in Meanjin/Brisbane, Dr Rachel Dioso-Villa
is known for her research on miscarriages of justice, creating
About the Artist | xvii

Australia’s first wrongful convictions repository. Her art,
reflecting a commitment to social justice, tells stories of hope
and resilience amid adversity. Through emotionally charged
pieces, she engages diverse audiences in conversations about
pressing social issues. She has been a finalist in various art
prizes and exhibits widely in Queensland and interstate. In
2023, she won the People’s Choice Award at the Lethbridge
Small Scale Art Award for her painting, ‘Can You See Me Now?,‘
exposing the challenges faced by wrongfully convicted women
in the criminal justice system.
xviii | About the Artist

About the Authors
This eTextbook is the result of collaboration between academic
and professional staff and students at the School of
Criminology and Criminal Justice at Griffith University. The
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Griffith
University is the largest community of criminologists in
Australia and is recognised as a leading department globally.
At Griffith, criminology is a multidisciplinary field of study,
drawing on psychology, law, sociology, politics and human
services. Our undergraduate degree is the only one in
Queensland backed by ‘well above world standard’ research.
That knowledge feeds into the most up-to-date study content,
giving you the best skills for an employment edge.
As long term educators in university settings around the
world, we know the difficulties of accessing meaningful and
affordable texts that support students and academics alike. It
is our hope that this eTextbook will be the first of many to help
support students studying criminology and criminal justice in
Australia and beyond. After all, we all know that learning is
more interesting and more memorable when we can situate
our experiences in a familiar context, something that
contemporary introductory textbooks do not do for Australian
students.
We hope that this eTextbook is just one of many that will lead
the change to make university level materials more accessible
to students, staff, and interested learners everywhere.
This edition was edited by Associate Professor Nadine M.
Connell, Lucy Forrester (Hons), and Steph Friend. All questions
and comments can be sent to the following email address:
CCJ_IntroText@griffith.edu.au We take all your feedback
seriously and are always looking for ways to improve the next
edition!
About the Authors | xix

Accessibility
Information
We believe that education must be available to everyone which
means supporting the creation of free, open, and accessible
educational resources. We are actively committed to increasing
the accessibility and usability of the textbooks we produce.
Accessibility features of the web

version of this resource
The web version of this resource has been designed with

accessibility in mind by incorporating the following features:
• It has been optimized for people who use screen-reader

technology.
◦ all content can be navigated using a keyboard

◦ links, headings, and tables are formatted to work with
screen readers
◦ images have alt tags
• Information is not conveyed by colour alone.
Other file formats available
In addition to the web version, this book is available in a

number of file formats including PDF, EPUB (for eReaders), and
various editable files. Choose from the selection of available file
xx | Accessibility Information
types from the ‘Download this book’ drop-down menu. This
option appears below the book cover image on the eBook’s
landing page.
Third-Party Content
In some cases, our open text includes third-party content. In

these cases, it is often not possible to ensure accessibility of this
content.
Accessibility Improvements
While we strive to ensure that this resource is as accessible and

usable as possible, we might not always get it right. We are
always looking for ways to make our resources more accessible.
If you have problems accessing this resource, please contact
CCJ_IntroText@griffith.edu.au to let us know so we can fix the
issue.
Copyright Note: This accessibility disclaimer is adapted

from BCampus’s Accessibility Toolkit, licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International license and University
of Southern Queensland’s Enhancing Inclusion, Diversity,
Equity and Accessibility (IDEA) in Open Educational Resources
(OER) licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Accessibility Information | xxi

xxii | Accessibility Information
Introduction
NADINE M. CONNELL
Welcome to an Introduction to Criminology and Criminal

Justice: An Australasian Perspective. The book you are reading
now is the result of a shared vision that students in Australia
and its surrounds should have current, contemporary and
high-quality textbooks that are focused on their reality, using
examples from Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands.
This vision also means ensuring that these materials are not
just the best possible, but the most accessible possible. In this
way, they are free to students (and interested lifelong learners),
designed to be accessible to a range of learning differences
and created in such a way that means new ideas and new
research can be easily incorporated without the long wait
times of traditional publishing.
As you read, I suspect that it will still look and feel a lot like
a traditional criminology and criminal justice textbook. And
in many ways, it still is. The first three chapters of the book
will take you through our basic understanding of crime and
criminology. After all, we need to understand the behaviour we
are interested in before we can figure out how to explain it!
Students will find up to date examples using Australian data
and Australian case studies whenever possible and be guided
through the complicated world of how we collect the
information about crime and victimisation. Soon, the data and
statistics will look like more than an unintelligible mess, we
promise! And along the way, you will have the opportunity
to learn more about several criminal justice organisations and
agencies that process and provide these data.
The next section of this textbook focuses on different
theoretical perspectives that guide our thinking about why
individuals engage in criminal and antisocial behaviour. We
Introduction | 1
have organised these approaches in a chronological fashion,
taking students along the journey of criminological theory
development over the last two hundred years. You will find
that they these theories are diverse, and I won’t be surprised if
you change your mind along the way about which explanation
makes to most sense to you. Don’t worry, everyone does!
One explanation of criminal behaviour is that people live in

disorganised neighbourhoods, which can lead to crime and decay.
Image generated using Midjourney using the prompt: an ultra
realistic image of urban decay, such as abandoned buildings, graffiti,
and littered streets –v 5.2
Each theory chapter is organised to help you understand a bit

of the historical context of theory while describing the way that
2 | Introduction
it helps us understand crime and deviance. After all, the history
surrounding ideas is sometimes as interesting as the idea itself!
In each chapter, you will also find different applications and
case studies of how the theory works in real life. Whenever
possible, research highlighted is from Australian and
surrounding countries. The study of criminology and criminal
justice in university settings in Australia is still quite young
compared to other countries, but that hasn’t stopped scholars
from designing and creating cutting edge research. We hope
you enjoy reading about it as much as we enjoyed writing
about it!
We also take a few moments to talk about the criticisms of
the theoretical perspectives, as no explanation has yet to be
found applicable for all individuals and all circumstances. Good
theory is important to design and implement good policy, so
we give you the opportunity to learn about these theories but
also be critical about how they can – and cannot – be used in
the real world. Many chapters also look to the future of these
theoretical frameworks, where new crimes and new
technologies are constantly pushing the boundaries of what
we know and how we can respond. Technological
advancements bring with them exciting new ways to make our
lives easier (and we may have used a little bit of generative
artificial intelligence to help us design some fun pictures) but
also gives individuals and organisations new options when it
comes to committing all sorts of crime. We would be remiss to
ignore the effect of this new technology on our understanding
of criminal and deviant behaviour.
Sprinkled among the chapters are examples of recent
Australian focused research, much of which has been
conducted by the very students of the School of Criminology
and Criminal Justice here at Griffith University. As part of their
Honours or Post-Graduate work, students undertake their own
research projects while working with an academic supervisor.
These are students just like yourselves, and in a few years, you
Introduction | 3
could be doing similar projects! Some of these projects have
even become peer-reviewed publications! This is a great
opportunity to learn more about what research is like and
participate in helping to create knowledge! You will see many
of the research-write ups also link to research presentations on
the topic. You will hear in the researchers’ own words about the
exciting work that they have done. I hope it makes you more
excited about what you are learning and also gives you more
confidence that you, too, can be a criminal justice researcher.
Towards the end of our discussion on theoretical
explanations of criminal behaviour, particularly in Chapters 13
and 14, we turn a more critical eye to our discipline. As we
mention in Chapters 1 and 2, the definition of crime can
change. Chapter 14, in particular, asks important questions
about whose definition of crime counts and how defining
crime can change who is – and who is not – criminal. We hope
it inspires you to think more deeply about our society and our
place in our society, and especially how your work in the field
of criminal justice can help promote social justice and change.
After all, justice is not as blind – or as objective – as we may
hope.
4 | Introduction
The scales of justice are not always balanced.
Image generated using Midjourney using the prompt: cartoon of
gender injustice in the criminal justice system –v 5.2
The ways to change the system, of course, are dependent on

how the system works. In Chapter 15, you will be introduced
to the various reactions to criminal and deviant behaviour. This
is a glimpse into what your future classes will talk about and
will also begin to give you ideas about what types of jobs and
agencies you will be most interested in.
Each chapter also includes a self-assessment quiz, where you
can check your own knowledge and make sure that you
understand what you are learning about. It is a great way to
Introduction | 5
identify places where you may still have questions or want to
do extra research. To help you with that, each chapter will also
have links to extra sources of information, including interviews
with scholars, information about current day laws and policies,
and more in-depth information about particularly relevant
topics and programs. Be sure to check them out for more
interesting criminal justice knowledge!
This book is the first attempt of an entire school to work
together to create resources that will be useful to our students
and beyond. We have tried to showcase Australian scholars and
those from neighbouring countries in every way that we could.
But this is just Version 1! As you read, if you think we have
missed something, let us know! Version 2 will be here before
you know it and we hope it will be even more full of current and
useful examples! Happy reading!
6 | Introduction
1. What is Criminology?
NADINE M. CONNELL
Learning Objectives
• To understand and define criminology and the

elements of a good criminological theory.
• Identify and begin to critically assess the
different ways of knowing and be able to
understand that different ways of knowing will be
useful for different things.
• Recognise the different ways that theories can
be classified and be able to classify them
appropriately.
Crime and Criminology | 7

Before You Begin
• When you hear the word criminology, what do

you think about? Do you think you could define it
for someone?
• How do you know what you know? Are there
any things that you know are real but you would
have a hard time explaining to somehow how you
know it?
• Have you ever thought about human nature, or
why people act the way that they do? Do you
think people are born with a certain personality?
Why or why not?
What is criminology?
Welcome to the study of criminology and criminal justice. Have

you stopped and wondered what actually is criminology? If
you’re like most of us in this discipline, someone has already
asked you a question about your study or your work and
probably made some wild assumptions along the way. For
instance, if you tell people that you are studying criminology,
do they automatically assume that you must be collecting
evidence? Or interviewing individuals who may have
committed crimes? And if they have watched too many
8 | Crime and Criminology

movies, they may think you are going to be an undercover spy
who will lure international criminals to their demise. Overall, a
very busy day!
If you are not exactly sure what criminology is, you are not
alone. Criminology as we know it today in a university setting
is a relatively new discipline compared to many other well-
established branches of social sciences, like philosophy or
sociology. But the search to understand why individuals
commit anti-social and criminal behaviour has been going on
for as long as humans have been around. After all, every version
of society has had people in it who did not follow the rules. Of
course, the reasons why people did not follow the rules were
thought to be quite different for most of history and often
related to the possibility that someone was possessed by a
demon. That thinking has long since changed.
Criminology as we know and study it today can be traced
back to the late 18th century (the 1700s) when societies,
especially in Europe, slowly began to rethink their beliefs about
the nature of humans. In particular, the Age of Enlightenment,
or the Age of Reason, brought with it new ideas about the
nature of humanity. In particular, we see scholars begin to
believe that humans make decisions based on rationality and
they begin to promote the use of the scientific method to
understand the world around us. These advancements were
happening in many different scholarly fields and the study of
human behaviour was only one discipline to benefit. Taken
together, this was the catalyst to the world of criminology we
know today.
The most enduring definition of criminology is one that was
first described by the sociologist Professor Edwin Sutherland.
Professor Sutherland defined criminology as the
comprehensive study of law-making, law-breaking and law-
enforcing mechanisms (Sutherland et al., 1992). This definition
is an incredibly useful one as we look to explain not only
individual behaviour but also how the criminal justice system

(e.g., laws, policies, and government) controls individual
behaviour. After all, as we will discuss throughout this book,
whether or not something is a crime is related to whether or
not the people in charge think it is a crime. It also recognises
the inherent interdisciplinarity in criminology. Much of what
we know is also connected to philosophy, law, sociology,
psychology and political science, just to name a few disciplines!
In fact, many of the professors who teach you may have
degrees in related fields because they studied crime from a
sociological or a psychological context. That is one of the
reasons that criminology studies so many different aspects of
behaviour.
Can you think of behaviours that are dangerous or perhaps
immoral, but not criminal? What about behaviours that are
criminal but do not create harm for others? Many things that
used to be illegal in our lifetime are now legal and celebrated.
A very good example of this is same-sex marriage. Australia did
not legalise same sex marriage until December 2017! Another
good example is the way that our society has changed our
understanding about the dangers of family violence.
Traditionally, violence in the home was not considered
anyone’s business and was not always illegal in all places
(Please note that family violence is still legal in some countries
but thankfully Australia is not one. That doesn’t mean that we
don’t have more work to do though!). Now, we understand the
damage that domestic and family violence does to families,
children, and society. The decision to criminalise certain acts,
therefore, is always a political one.
Because of that, criminologists will often refer to anti-social
or deviant behaviour when talking about crime. Crime is
codified by law but anti-social behaviour and deviance
encompass a wide range of behaviours that are still of interest
to the study of crime. Many of these other behaviours are also
committed by people who break the law. A good example of
this is childhood bullying. Bullying in school is not against the

law. But we do know that young people who bully their
classmates are more likely to grow up to commit crimes, so it is
an important early behaviour to pay attention to (Piquero et al.,
2013).
What does the study of law-making, law-breaking and law
enforcement look like? Our goal as criminologists is to
objectively study the nature, extent, causes and control of anti-
social and deviant behaviours (Snipes et al., 2019). We
investigate both the behaviours themselves and the societal
responses to them, at both the individual and the institutional
levels. Central to that is our definition of crime, which
influences the way that we attempt to explain criminal
behaviour. In Chapter 2, you will have the opportunity to think
more critical about crime and how it is defined, but for now,
we will use a very basic dictionary definition. Crime is an act
deemed socially harmful or dangerous, that is specifically
defined, prohibited and punished under criminal law.
The definition of crime is important because different
criminological theories will attempt to explain different kinds of
criminal behaviour, although we will soon learn that the more
types of behaviour a theory can explain, the better.
Criminology and Science
What does it mean to be objective? Traditionally, this has

meant the application of the scientific method in order to
observe the world and make sense of our observations. You
may remember talking about the scientific method in some
of your classes in primary and high school. Figure 1.1 shows a
simplified example. Our goal, by using the scientific method,
is to make statements about the relationships between
observable phenomena. Our statements should be as free
from bias as possible, although it is very important to

remember that all of us have some inherent bias that will affect
our interpretations of our observations. These statements
become theories (Babbie, 1989). That is why it is very important
to be willing to reflect on our work, be critical of our ideas and
welcome other people to offer a fresh perspective.
Figure 1.1: The Scientific Method

The Scientific Method as an Ongoing Process by ArchonMagnus
licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0
We use the scientific method to collect observations called

data (Hartley, 2011). We then try to come up with explanations
for why we see the things that we see. After we develop these
theories, we test them using empirical) method. By constantly
repeating this process, we can begin to identify patterns in
behaviour. From these observations we can begin to ask
questions about why things happen. Theories are statements
about the relationships between these observations (Babbie,

1989; Stinchcombe, 1968). These questions become
hypotheses, which are testable. We collect more data to test
these hypotheses, generally in a very organised and systematic
process, and sometimes we will have to refine or reject our
hypotheses. We use these outcomes to develop our general
theories of behaviour. And then we start all over again.
We can technically start this process at either the top or
the bottom of the cycle. When we start with our observations
and use them to create a theory about the world, we are
undergoing an inductive process. When we start with a theory
and collect observations to test our theory, we are undergoing
a deductive process. You will learn more about this in your
research methods classes but what is important to know is
that both ways are legitimate ways to create theories of human
behaviour.
Figure 1.2: Inductive vs. deductive theory construction

Qualitative vs Quantitative by Jaime Anstee licensed under CC-BY-SA
4.0

One important question that comes up a lot is how a theory
is different than common sense. This is a very reasonable
question. After all, common sense comes from observing the
world around us. But one limitation of common sense is that it
is limited by our own experiences, including where – and when
– we live. One famous example is that of the black swan. In
Europe, swans are white. But when Dutch explorer Willem de
Vlamingh arrived in Australia in 1697, he encountered a black
swan. Of course, to Australian First Nations’ peoples, it was
common sense that a swan would be black! This is a silly
example of how we only know what we know, so processes
like empirical inquiry can help us expand our experiences into
patterned observations that can then be generalised to other
experiences.
Ways of Knowing
Theories are, of course, only one way we know what we know.

Throughout history there have been other ways that
individuals and societies came to conclusions about the nature
of life and humanity. These are the most common ways of
knowing that are generally discussed:
Authoritarian Way of Knowing
This involves deferring to socially recognised experts for

knowledge dissemination. These experts, often equipped with
formal credentials, hold prominence in specific domains. There
are also other ways that individuals can be considered experts.
While Western society prioritises formal credentials, other
societies prioritise an individual’s level of respect and standing
in a community, which is usually given based on socially agreed

upon qualities and actions. In working within the criminal
justice system, it is essential to recognise that other types of
expertise, like community-based expertise, which may not
always align with conventional academic standards, are also
incredibly valuable.
Mystical Way of Knowing
Mystical ways of knowing encompass intuitive, spiritual, or

religious insights that guide our knowledge about what is
“right.” Such traditions gave way to what was known as trial
by battle in the Middle Ages, which eventually morphed into
trial by ordeal (Gehring and Batista, 2017). Many of you will be
familiar with the idea of trial by ordeal if you have heard of
stories of trials for those accused of witchcraft or the atrocities
of the Spanish Inquisition. Thankfully such approaches to
punishment are no longer common and we determine
innocence or guilt in much more reasonable ways today.
Logic-Rational Way of Knowing
Many people use logic to come to conclusions about the world

around us (Beccaria, 1963). Logic and rationality can be very
useful tools to determine truth but are limited in that people
do not always act in logical or rational ways. While logical
frameworks provide valuable insights, we must acknowledge
their limitations, as truth may transcend conventional logic in
certain contexts.

Scientific Way of Knowing
This brings us back to where we started: a way of knowing

based on observation and objectivity. The use of empirical
observations can help us test our hypotheses and help us
refine our understanding of the world. Over time, the
consistent support for our hypotheses will give us more
confidence that our theories are reasonable ways to explain the
world.
The Parts of a Theory
Now that we have established a shared understanding of the

definition of criminology and have some familiarity with the
use of observation to help us develop theories, it is time to delve
a little deeper into the anatomy of a theory. Understanding the
components of theories is crucial for both critiquing existing
theories and understanding their contextual significance.
Every theory comprises two essential elements: articulated
propositions and unarticulated propositions. These
components collectively form the foundation of a theory’s
structure and implications (Gouldner, 1970).
Articulated Propositions
An articulated proposition is a formally expressed statement

that describes the relationships that link variables that make
up a theoretical explanation. These statements describe the
causal mechanisms underlying the phenomenon of study. For
example, in Chapter 5 you will learn more about strain theories,
which have articulated propositions that explain the

relationship between societal goals and the occurrence of
deviant behaviour. Importantly, these propositions are
expected to align with observed reality, providing a basis for
continued testing.
Unarticulated Propositions
Contrary to their articulated counterparts, unarticulated

propositions represent implicit beliefs and assumptions that
are inherent to a theory. These assumptions, usually reflecting
the perspective of the theorist, encompass broader notions
about human behaviour and societal dynamics. Unarticulated
propositions often influence a theory’s policy implications and
practical applications. For instance, implicit beliefs about the
nature of criminality may shape recommendations for crime
prevention or rehabilitation strategies. If we think people can
change, we may implement a different set of programs than if
we think that people cannot improve.
Goals of a Theory
A theory serves four primary goals: explanation, prediction,

summarisation, and utility.
1. Explanation: a theory attempts toto explain the

phenomenon under study by making statements about
its underlying mechanisms. In our case, we are trying to
explain the phenomena of crime and anti-social
behaviours.
2. Prediction: a theory is only useful if it can predict future
occurrences based on the established causal relationships
of interest. If we cannot use a theory to predict when and

where crime will happen, we do not have a very useful
theory.
3. Summarise: a theory should accurately summarise the
existing body of knowledge in its domain. A theory about
crime should also be explain why our current knowledge
about crime is correct.
4. Use Value: a theory needs to have practical utility, offering
insights that inform policy decisions and interventions.
After all, good theory will make good policy. And without a
strong understanding of theory, we will not be able to
properly critique and assess our policy (Paternoster and
Bachman, 2001).
Criteria for Evaluating Theory
There are several different lists of criteria that exist to help us

determine if we have a good theory. We will use the criteria
from the well-respected criminologist Professor Ronald
Akers[1] (1994). You will learn more about his work in Chapter 10.
According to Professor Akers, a good theory should be:
1. Internally consistent and non-tautological. Is the theory

logical? Does the theory make sense? Does the theory
avoid circular reasoning?
2. Testable. Can the theory be tested? Remember, if we
cannot develop a way to observe something, we cannot
test it.
3. Empirically supported. Has the theory received some
empirical support? When researchers conduct studies to
test the theory, have they found support for it?
4. Parsimonious yet broad. Is the theory broad in scope, yet
parsimonious? Parsimonious really means frugal but in
this setting, we use it to mean simple and without extra
propositions. The theory needs to be able to explain more

than a small subsection of crime and it needs to do so
with as few major concepts as possible.
5. Real world use. Does the theory have some “real world”
use? Can we use the theory to do something about crime
in society?
Classifying Theory
There are several different ways that we can classify theories

in criminology. These are very useful distinctions as we try to
understand which theories are able to explain behaviour in
which circumstances. Society is complex and while we strive
for the most parsimonious explanation of social behaviour,
those explanations also come from a place of our own
understanding of the world. The most common ways to classify
a theory are:
Worldview or Paradigm
Level of Analysis
Underlying Assumptions
Worldview or Paradigm
Theories can be classified based on their underlying

assumptions about social order. There are three main
paradigms that criminologists use.
Consensus Paradigm
The consensus paradigm posits that society functions
harmoniously and that there is general agreement on what
is – and what is not – acceptable. In this type of worldview,
criminal behaviour serves a functional role because it reinforces
the agreed upon social norms of behaviour. One example of a

consensus paradigm is classical strain theories, which you will
learn more about in Chapter 5.
Conflict Paradigm
The conflict paradigm highlights societal divisions and power
struggles. Conflict criminology is strongly rooted in the work
of Karl Marx, who argues that crime arises from class conflicts.
In the conflict paradigm, capitalism perpetuates inequality and
then crime. There are several different types of conflict theories
and you will learn about three of them in Chapter 14.
Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism focuses on how social interactions
shape individual behaviour. Crime is perceived as a violation of
social norms. One example of a symbolic interactionist theory
is labelling theory, which highlights how societal reactions to
deviance can influence individuals’ self-concepts and future
actions. You will learn more about these theories in Chapter 13.
Level of Analysis
Theories are often categorised into micro and macro levels of

analysis:
Micro-Level Theories
Micro-level theories examine individual processes
contributing to criminal behaviour.
Macro-Level Theories
Macro-level theories focus on broader societal factors
influencing crime rates. These theories are often considered
social or institutional level theories.

Underlying Assumptions
The underlying assumptions of a theory encompass our

perspectives on social order and beliefs about human nature:
Normative vs. Relativistic Definitions
One thing that a theory relies on is an underlying assumption
or belief about social order (Lemert, 1981). After all, if you are
going to explain why people commit anti-social behaviours,
you also have to explain why those behaviours are considered
anti-social to begin with. Normative assumptions suggest a
shared consensus on morality, where everyone agrees upon
what is moral and right. Relativistic assumptions argue that
morality is contingent upon power dynamics. For example,
consensus theories assume a shared understanding of right
and wrong, while conflict theories acknowledge power
differentials in defining morality.
Assumptions about Human Nature
Theories vary in their beliefs about human nature,
influencing the ways in which they propose to interpret of
criminal behaviour. One of the defining debates in criminology
is whether “nature or nurture” causes individuals to commit
crime. There are three main assumptions that criminological
theories can make about human nature. The first is that
human being are inherently good and have to be pushed to
commit crimes. The second is that human beings are
inherently bad, or at least out to maximise their own pleasure,
and have to be deterred or stopped from committing crime.
The third possible assumption about human nature is known
as the tabula rasa argument, or that everyone is born as a
blank slate. Through the process of living and learning, we have
different ideas imprinted into our personality. As you read
through the different chapters in this textbook, I encourage
you to see if you can determine what assumption of human
nature each theory starts with.

Connecting Theory to Policy
At this point, you may be asking yourself what all of these

things have to do with the reality of working in the criminal
justice system. It is a very fair question. Many of the concepts in
this chapter are, after all, a little bit vague and do not seem to
have immediate importance for the day to day work of criminal
justice agencies. But remember what we said earlier in this
chapter: good theory helps create good policy (Paternoster and
Bachman, 2001). How does this work?
As we use the scientific method to observe reality to help
us create testable hypotheses that explain the reasons that
humans act the way that they do, we refine our understanding
of the world and create the building blocks of evidence that will
help us determine what policies are most likely to be effective
in reducing crime. The process of collecting this evidence and
reporting it back to society to help create better policy is called
translational research (Blomberg et al., 2024). Every discipline
has some version of translational research. You encounter
translational research every day. Whether it be a public health
message to wash your hands (for 20 seconds!) or a reminder to
wear your seatbelt, most government policy has its origins in a
research recommendation.
Because this evidence is so important for society at large, we
have a responsibility to take the way that we investigate this
claims very seriously. Criminologist Professor Robert Sampson
said it best: “Data never “speak for themselves”—making sense
of causal patterns requires theoretical claims about
unobserved mechanisms and social processes no matter what
the experiment or statistical method employed” (Sampson,
2010, p. 491, italics in original). Collecting data and making
observations is only one part of the process. It is up to us to
make sense of those observations so that we can inform
meaningful change.

A good example of when this backfires is example of school
violence (Blomberg et al., 2024). We know that school violence
can be improved by improving school climate, helping
students create strong friendships, and incorporating
successful bullying prevention programs (Connell et al., 2013;
Connell et al., 2014; Schell-Busey et al., 2023; Turanovic and
Siennick, 2022). However, schools in many juridsictions insist on
implementing zero-tolerance policies and adding more police
officers to schools (Han and Connell, 2021; Turnanovic et al.,
2022). This is why we need strong theory to guide strong policy;
translational research is the way to get there.
Conclusion
At this point in time, you may feel a little overwhelmed. But

don’t worry; soon this will all become very clear. In the coming
chapters, you will learn about the different theoretical
frameworks that criminologists use to explain all sorts of
deviant, anti-social and criminal behaviour. What is important
now is that you understand that the process of creating, testing
and refining a theory of human behaviour is not a random one.
And beyond that, there are a lot of underlying assumptions
that we bring to the conversation, even if we are trying to be
objective. Objectivity is incredibly difficult and what is more
important is to articulate and be honest about the
assumptions that are inherent in the theories and thought
processes that we are going through.
Criminology has many theoretical explanations of behaviour.
As you read through the following chapters, think about which
ones most resonate with you and why. What are the
assumptions that you have about society and humanity that
drive your opinions about which theories make the most sense
to you? By the end of this course, we hope that you have a

firm understanding of the different explanations of criminal
and deviant behaviour, are able to examine these explanations
with a critical eye and feel comfortable about the different ways
that good theory can begin to inform good policy. Because at
the end of the day, our goal is to create good policy that helps
keep people and societies safe and well supported.
Check Your Knowledge
An interactive H5P element has been excluded

from this version of the text. You can view it online
here:
https://oercollective.caul.edu.au/criminology-criminal-
justice/?p=5#h5p-17
Discussion Questions
1. How do we identify if a criminological theory is

good?
2. How does the scientific method support the
creation and refinement of new explanations of
social behaviour?

3. What are the underlying assumptions that go
into the ways we explain anti-social and criminal
behaviour? Why is it important to be able to
identify and articulate these assumptions?
REFERENCES
Akers, R. L. (1994). Criminological theories: Introduction and

evaluation. Roxbury Publishing Company.
Babbie, E. R. (1989). The practice of social research.
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Beccaria, C. (1963/1767). On crimes and punishments
(Introduction by H. Paolucci, Trans.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Blomberg, T. J., Copp, J. E., & Turanovic, J. J. (2024). Challenges
and prospects for evidence based policy in criminology. Annual
review of Criminology, 7, 143-162.
Connell, N. M., Schell-Busey, N. M., Pearce, A. N., & Negro,
P. (2014). Badgrlz? Exploring sex differences in cyberbullying
behaviors. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 12(3), 209-228.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204013503889
Connell, N. M., Barbieri, N., & Reingle Gonzalez, J. M. (2015).
Understanding school effects on students’ willingness to report
peer weapon carrying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice,
13(3), 258-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204014544512
Gehring, K. S. & Batista, M. R. (2017). Crimcomics: Origins of
criminology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gouldner, A. W. (1970). The coming crisis of western sociology.
New York: Basic Publishing.

Han, S., & Connell, N. M. (2021). The effects of school police
officers on victimization, delinquency, and fear of crime:
Focusing on Korean youth. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 65(12), 1356-1372.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20946933
Hartley, R. D. (2011). The scientific method and the research
process in criminology and criminal justice. In Snapshots of
Research: Readings in Criminology and Criminal Justice (pp.
1-15). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/
9781452230658
Lemert, E. M. (1981). Issues in the Study of Deviance. The
Sociological Quarterly, 22(2), 285-305.
Paternoster, R., & Bachman, R. (2001). Explaining crime and
criminals. Oxford University Press.
Piquero, A. R., Connell, N. M., Piquero, N. L., Farrington, D. P.,
& Jennings, W. G. (2013). Does adolescent bullying distinguish
between male offending trajectories in late middle age?
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(3), 444-453.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9883-3
Sampson, R. J. (2010). Gold standard myths: Observations on
the experimental turn in quantitative criminology. Journal of
Quantitative Criminololgy, 26(4):489–500.
Schell-Busey, N., Connell, N. M. & Walding, S. (2023)
Examining gender differences in a social norms prevention
program for cyberbullying. International Journal of Bullying
Prevention (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-023-00196-4
Snipes, J. B., Bernard, T. J., & Gerould, A. L. (2019). Vold’s
theoretical criminology. Oxford University Press.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1968). Constructing social theories. New
York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Sutherland, E. H., Cressey, D. R., & Luckenbill, D. F. (1992).
Principles of criminology. Altamira Press.
Turanovic, J. J. & Siennick S. E. (2022). The causes and
consequences of school violence: A review. National Institute

of Justice Rep. NCJ 302346, Office of Justice
Programs, Washington, DC.
Turanovic, J. J., Pratt, T. C., Kulig, T. C., Cullen, F. T.
(2022). Confronting school violence: A synthesis of six decades
of research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[1] For more information about Professor Ronald Akers, check

out this interview with Professor Gary Jenson for the Oral
History Project of the American Society of Criminology.

2. What is Crime?
Defining and
Measuring Criminal
Behaviour
DAVID BARTLETT
Learning Objectives
• Explain how crime is defined and identify the

primary sources of crime data and explain their
strengths and limitations.
• Identify key factors that affect the interpretation
of various crime statistics.
• Understand how different sources of crime data
can be drawn upon to address crime related
questions.
28 | Defining and Measuring Crime

Before You Begin
• Take a moment to think about the last time you

heard someone talk about crime. Did the speaker
make broad statements about crime, like maybe
it was going up? How did that make you feel?
• Are you confident that everything you think is
legal really is legal?
• Can you think of anything in your lifetime that
has changed status from illegal to legal? Or the
other way around?
Introduction
Crime is simple, yet complex, to define. One could simply ask

‘Is it a breach of the law?’ If yes, then it’s a crime. If no, then
it is not a crime. There are, however, a number of complexities
in that approach, along with a range of alternate definitions.
Understanding these is important; how we define crime has
implications for how it is measured and in turn how it is
reported. Changes in the number and rate of reported crimes,
particularly increases in crime, can generate considerable
political and media attention. This can lead to a range of flow-
on effects, including increased community fear of crime and
resulting changes in behaviour. For example, some people may
Defining and Measuring Crime | 29

start to avoid a geographic area which has been reported to be
experiencing an increase in crime. Yet someone’s risk of being
a victim of crime may not have changed. The ability to access
and interpret crime data is fundamental to understanding and
making informed decisions regarding crime.
This chapter explores the ways in which crime can be defined
and measured. In doing so, it highlights the nuances that
impact the collection and reporting of various crime statistics.
The key aim of this chapter is to help you become a
sophisticated consumer of crime data.
What is crime?
Crime can be defined multiple ways. In this section we explore

three sources of crime definitions:
• Dictionary definitions
• Harm-based and human rights definitions
• Legal definitions
When searching for a definition of crime one could simply

consult a dictionary. While dictionary definitions may vary,
they often share commonalities. As Ransley and Prenzler
(2020) highlight, most dictionaries identify crimes as acts or
omissions that:
• cause public harm

• are forbidden by law
• are punishable by law
In their analysis of dictionary definitions Ransley and Prenzler

(2020) argue that they suffer from three key deficits:
• they exclude harmful behaviours that are not punishable

by law
• they encapsulate behaviours that are forbidden by and
punishable under law, but cause no public harm
• concepts of what constitutes public harm varies across
cultures, geographic regions and time
Dictionary definitions therefore present significant challenges

for defining crime.
Harm-based and human rights definitions are also
challenging when it comes to defining crime. A harm-based
definition would, for example, see a mother’s consumption of
alcohol in pregnancy as a crime if it resulted in the child
acquiring Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. However, is it fair
and just to treat this as a crime when the mother may have
consumed alcohol early in the pregnancy, before she was even
aware she was pregnant? Moreover, the research evidence and
medical advice in respect of safe alcohol limits has changed
over time (Dejong et al., 2019). Similarly, what constitutes
human rights changes over time and across jurisdictions. A
comparison of country reports on human rights shows there to
be considerable variation between countries, even our Pacific
region neighbours, in terms of what constitutes a human right.
At a practical micro-level, how are we to resolve who the
‘offender’ is in a situation where two parties are exercising
competing rights – whose right is more important or takes
precedence?
Legal definitions, with their focus on acts or omissions that
render a person liable to punishment, provide greater clarity
as to whether a particular behaviour is a crime. However, it is
important to note that legally the term ‘crime’ is often reserved
for the most serious criminal offences. Other types of offences
not usually defined legally as ‘crimes’ include traffic offences,
corporations law offences, regulatory offences relating to the
operation of businesses, and less serious criminal offences.

However, it is common for people, including criminology
researchers, to use the term crime to mean all offences at law.
For the remainder of this chapter crime is defined by the
legal definition and includes all types of offences regardless of
seriousness.
Crime is Social
Crime is a social construction. That is, a behaviour is deemed to

be a crime only after a law is passed to render the commission
or omission of that action unlawful. In determining which
behaviours to make unlawful lawmakers consider cultural
factors and the prevailing community values and interests
(Findlay, Odgers & Yeo, 2010). Behaviours deemed to be
criminal therefore vary between jurisdictions and over time.
There are some behaviours for which there is little variation
across jurisdictions and time periods. These are often termed
‘core crimes’ and include offences such as murder, assault,
sexual assault, robbery, kidnapping and theft which are
universally regarded as morally wrong (Ransley & Prenzler,
2020). While these offences have longevity in being regarded
as crimes, in some jurisdictions there have been changes in
societal attitudes that have led to the legislating of defences
(e.g., domestic violence related defences to murder of an
abusive spouse or partner).
There is often far less public agreement, and therefore
greater variability in attitudes, on other types of behaviours. The
result can lead to significant differences between jurisdictions
in terms of the lawfulness of behaviour. Take differences
between jurisdictions in the age of consent. In Victoria, the age
of consent for sexual activity between consenting parties is 16
years. Yet in neighbouring South Australia, the age of consent
is 17 years. The practical implications and consequences of that
variation for young couples can be significant. Consensual

sexual activity between the same young couple may,
depending upon which side of the state border they are, render
the older partner liable to prosecution for a sexual offence.
However, the decision to charge the 17-year-old likely will come
down to police discretion.
The socially constructed nature of crime means that the
behaviours which are criminalised can change over time.
Ransley and Prenzler (2020) identify four primary sources of
change in the criminal law:
• social change (e.g. recognition of coercive control and

domestic violence)
• technological change (e.g. new crimes relating to ‘revenge
porn’)
• evolving morality (e.g. enabling voluntary assisted dying
for people who are terminally ill)
• law reform programs (e.g. decriminalising possession of
non-prescribed drugs in some jurisdictions)
Changes in which behaviours are criminalised can have

significant effects on crime statistics. Take, for example, a
change in the law to decriminalise possession of drugs. In
Queensland in 2021/22 there were 61,909 recorded drug
offences, of which 28,325 offences were for possession of drugs
(Queensland Government Statistician’s Office, 2023). If all other
factors remained constant, passing a law to decriminalise
possession of drugs would reduce recorded drug offences by
45.8%.
Measuring Crime
Administrative data collected by criminal justice agencies is

our most common source of crime data and knowledge. In
particular, police data on recorded crimes is one of the most

frequently cited sources of crime statistics. However, it is
important to remember that not all offences that are
committed are recorded. As Figure 2.1 shows, there are a
number of steps that determine whether a matter becomes a
recorded crime.
Figure 2.1: Steps involved in recording crime. (Reproduced with

permission, for publication in this book only. Source: Weatherburn,
2011)
Criminologists reply upon a range of other data sources to

ascertain the extent of the dark figure of crime. The most
commonly relied upon source are victimisation surveys. These

surveys typically ask people whether they have been a victim
of crime in a prescribed period, often the last 12 months, and
whether they reported the crime to the police. Since 2008 the
Australian Bureau of Statistics has conducted an annual crime
victimisation survey. Similar surveys exist in other jurisdictions
including New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada and
Korea. Criminologists sometimes draw upon other sources of
data, such as ambulance calls for service data and hospital
admission data, to gauge the extent of violent crime in a
locality. Additionally, technological innovations have created
new opportunities to collect data on crime; for example the
Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission operates a waste
water monitoring program to understand trends in drug use.
Researchers sometimes differentiate between

reported crime and recorded crime. Reported
crimes are typically those that have a victim and are
reported to the police by the victim or a witness
(e.g., assaults and thefts). Many other types of
offences, such as drug and traffic offences are
detected by police. Recorded crimes are those that
have been officially recorded by police, either after
being reported to or detected by police. Crimes that
are not recorded by police form part of what
criminologists refer to as the dark figure of crime.

Safer inside: Comparing the experiences and risks faced by
young people who couch-surf and sleep rough
Katie Hail-Jares, Rhianon Vichta-Ohlsen, & Caitlin Nash
Published in Journal of Youth Studies (2021). Volume 24,

Issue 3, pages305-322.
Homelessness and unstable housing among young

people have risen due to the current cost of living crisis
and global economic downturn, with a particular
increase in reliance on couch-surfing. The literature
review conducted for the study found that there were
varying definitions of youth homelessness, resulting in
limited empirical knowledge regarding the prevalence
and impacts of couch-surfing amongst young people.
The study also found that many young people do not
consider couch-surfing a form of homelessness and
that overall comparisons of the risks to other forms of
homelessness is not generally understood.
The research aimed to describe the characteristics of

young people who are sleeping rough, couch-surfing,
or other accommodation and compare the risk factors
between those who are rough sleeping to those who
are couch-surfing, as well as compare the risk factors of
rough-sleepers to all other young people utilising
homelessness services.
Data was collected from Brisbane Youth Service

(BYS), totalling a sample of 808 records. BYS is a non-
governmental organisation that operates a youth-

specific service. The data was selected as it provides a
fairly in-depth insight into what issues a young person
may be experiencing, including their living
arrangements. Whilst this study compared couch-
surfers and rough-sleepers to fill the gap in the
knowledge, limitations were identified in using cross-
sectional data and no record of the duration of the
young person’s current living situation. The researchers
suggest future studies should use a life-calendar
approach to housing to obtain more accurate
information.
Findings from the research concluded that couch

surfers are more likely to be female, have limited
community support, reported poor mental health, and
had more serious histories of self-harm. Other findings
were in line with previous research where couch-surfers
may not identify as homeless or feel that services or
organisations do not meet their needs. There is a
perception amongst the respondents that service
providers view couch-surfing as less critical than
rough-sleeping. As couch-surfers are not as visible as
rough-sleeping, their situation is often perceived as
needing fewer support than those sleeping in public
spaces.
Recommendations include that homelessness

services classify couch-surfing as critical due to the risk
factors faced by those engaging in it. Support
programs need to adapt risk assessments for couch-
surfers that respond to identified patterns or risk and
use targeted harm reduction practices in providing

support. It is important to identify all forms of youth
homelessness and broaden the knowledge around the
differences in couch-surfing and rough-sleeping to
identify the risks and needs of young people who are
experiencing homelessness.
A summary by Melissa Osborn
Offender surveys collect data to help us understand

offenders’ self-reported frequency of offending, offence
characteristics and offending trajectories. Surveying offenders
can be helpful in understanding the dark figure of crime,
developing crime prevention strategies and identifying factors
that lead to desistance from offending. Offender surveys are
typically performed as part of specific research projects rather
than as part of routine crime data collections. One Australian
exception is the Australian Institute of Criminology’s Drug Use
Monitoring in Australia (DUMA) program which has been
surveying police detainees since 1999.
Population surveys are a further means of quantifying the
dark figure of crime. These self-report surveys sample large
numbers of people about their engagement in particular
behaviours. Typically they are targeted to particular groups of
people, such as young people, or particular issues. One such
survey is the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s
National Drug Strategy Household Survey which was last
conducted in 2019.
Often overlooked in crime data are white collar crimes
committed by corporations and businesses. Responsibility for
investigating and prosecuting those offences is within the
jurisdiction of a plethora of regulatory agencies. In Australia
these include the Australian Securities and Investments

Commission, Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission, Fair Work Ombudsman and state and territory
based workplace health and safety regulators. In many
jurisdictions including Australia each regulatory agency
maintains and reports their own data. The absence of a single
dataset means that the extent of white collar crime committed
by corporations is largely unknown (Bartlett et al., 2020).
Corporate Crime in Australia: The Extent of the Problem
David Bartlett, Ransley, Janet, Lucy Forrester, and Kristine

Middendorp
Corporate crime has the capacity to cause harms at

both the societal and individual level and it is
becoming an important concern for the governments
and the public. This study identifies two main gaps
within the current literature; the lack of research on the
offending behaviours of corporate offenders and the
lack of research that measures parent and their wholly
owned subsidiary companies as one entity. This aimed
to close these gaps within the current literature with
the final goal of examining the extent and context of
offending and seeking to assess the offending
behaviours of corporations within Australia.
Data for this study was consolidated from four

primary national regulators; ASIC, the ACC, the ATO and
the FWC/FWO. A cross-sectional study was conducted
to examine the offending and regulatory actions taken
against Australia’s largest corporations and their wholly
owned subsidiary corporations that were publicly listed

in the Australian Securities Exchange’s ASX200 index
from the beginning of January 2010 to the end of
December 2015. The total sample contained 1,941
corporations which was comprised of 33 parent
corporations and 1,908 subsidiary corporations.
The results of this study indicate that corporate crime

is patterned and not evenly distributed with corporate
offending being concentrated in specific industry
sectors such as financial services, utilities, and
consumer staples sectors. In addition, the results show
that corporate offending is concentrated in wholly
owned subsidiary companies with many of the
offences being related to market integrity, misleading
representations, and deceptive conduct. This study also
found that actions taken in response to offending
varied by industry sector however, these variations may
be due to the different regulatory styles being enforced
to different industries.
The most important improvement to policy and

practices that was suggested by the researchers would
be to establish a national database for corporate
offending. This national database would allow
Australian regulators to have access to a company’s
overall history thus allowing the appropriate
enforcement sanctions to be applied which would help
increase deterrence and decrease rates of corporate
crime within Australia. It would also improve
transparency, which would assist regulatory agencies
in monitoring and capturing offending companies.
Furthermore, the transparency would increase the
ability for third parties to undertake due diligence upon

their commercial partners thus promoting ethical
business practices.
In conclusion, according to the researchers, this study

was the first empirical study to examine corporate
crime across multiple different industries and
regulatory agencies whilst also including subsidiary
offending data within Australia. While there were
limitations in the study, most of which resulted from
the sampling data, the researchers did acknowledge
that there is a possibility that the results of this study
were not naturally present but only occurred because
of this investigation. Therefore, more research into this
area would be required to further corroborate these
results. Nevertheless, one of the most important
findings from this study is the lack of coordination
between different regulatory agencies and the need for
a national database of corporate offending.
Summary by Natasha Smith
The remainder of this chapter is dedicated to understanding

the nuances of criminal justice agency data and the
highlighting the dedicated crime and justice research agencies
that exist in Australia.
Criminal Justice Agency Statistics
Agencies forming the three arms of the criminal justice system

– police, courts and corrections – collect administrative data for
the purpose of discharging their functions, for example:
• police collect data on the date, time, location and type of

offences committed so they know where to deploy
resources to solve crimes and prevent further offending.
• courts collect data to assist in managing workloads.
• corrective services collect data to assist in managing the
offender population.
Each agency collects a plethora of administrative data. Figure

2.2 shows the basic types of data often collected by each
agency. While that data is collected largely for agency
management purposes, it also provides us with rich data on
various dimensions of crime and crime trends. However, with
offences varying between jurisdictions depending upon which
behaviours have been criminalised, comparisons of crime data
between different State, Territories and countries can be
difficult.

Figure 2.2: Basic Crime Agency Data

To resolve this challenge, in 1997 the Australian
Bureau of Statistics published the Australian and
New Zealand Standard Offence Classification
(ANZSOC) as a framework for classifying offences
and producing national standardised crime
statistics. Similar classification frameworks exist in
other jurisdictions, for example the Uniform Crime
Reporting program operating in the United States.
The ANZSOC framework classifies crime into 17

categories. Those categories can be further
aggregated to produce broader categories such as
crimes against the person (also referred to as
violent crime) and property crime.
Since development of the ANZSOC, the Australian Bureau

of Statistics has produced national crime statistics that enable
researchers to broadly compare crime data over different time
periods and jurisdictions. However, in comparing offence
counts between jurisdictions it is important to always be alert
to jurisdictional differences; for example, different ages of
consent means that the same behaviour is criminal in one
jurisdiction but lawful in another.
Jurisdictions also vary in population. With crime being the
result of human behaviour, population size differences often
affect the volume of committed crime. In western liberal
democracies in particular, as the population increases so too
does the number of offences. Put simply, the higher the
population the more likely it is that there will be people who
will offend and consequently the higher the number of
offences. Even within jurisdictions and localities the population

rarely remains consistent over time, making it challenging to
compare crime across different time periods.
To overcome the challenge of different population sizes,
criminologists standardise the data. This is typically done by
comparing the rate of offending as opposed to the number of
offences. The rate of offending creates a standardised measure
of crime to enable fair comparisons between different
jurisdictions and time periods. Figure 2.3 shows how to
calculate a rate of offending and demonstrates the importance
of utilising the rate of offending as opposed to offence counts
where comparing different localities.
While usually applied to the population as a whole, rates
may also be calculated for specific age groups. As Chapter 3
will highlight, crime is typically committed by younger people.
Unsurprisingly then, localities with a higher proportion of
younger people generally have more crime than those with a
predominantly older population. Examining the age structure
of a population and calculating crime rates for each age group
can give a more nuanced measure of crime in a locality and
how it changes over time.
Figure 2.3: Where is crime higher?
In 2021/2022, the Queensland cities of Cairns and

Gold Coast had a similar number of recorded
offences; Cairns = 6,258 and Gold Coast = 6,359.
Based upon these numbers, some people would
conclude that the Gold Coast had a slightly higher
amount of crime.

Cairns vs. the Gold Coast: number of offences.
However, the Gold Coast has a much higher

population.
Converting the number of offences to a rate per

100,000 of the population standardises the number
and enables a fair comparision.
The formula to calculate a rate per 100,000

population is: [Number of Offences / Population] x
100,000.
When the size of the population is taken into

account, Cairns has a higher crime rate than the
Gold Coast.
Cairns = 2,431.6 offences per 100,000 population
Gold Coast = 973.9 offences per 100,000

population

Cairns vs. Gold Coast: crime rates.
It is important to note that the Population used is

the equation is the resident population. This
presents a ch allenge for interpreting the rate of
offending. In some areas, a high number of visitors
and tourists means there are far more people (and
potential offenders) in the area. Yet the number of
offences is divided by only the resident population.
This tends to produce a rate of offending much
higher than would be expected for the size of the
locality.
Data source: Crime Report, Queensland,

2021-2022.
Four other factors should be considered when comparing

crime data over different jurisdictions and time periods:
policing practices, victim reporting, counting rules and
temporal variation.

Policing Practices
Policing practices and technologies can significantly influence

the volume of recorded crime in a locality. Consider the impact
of increased policing resources being devoted to a specific
area. Increases in both police officer numbers and the
frequency of patrols increase the chances of police detecting
offences. This in turn results in more recorded offences. While
the actual number of offences being committed in the locality
may be stable, the increased police detection serves to increase
the volume of recorded crime. This may occur infrequently,
such as when police run dedicated operations targeting a
particular area or type of behaviour.
Even very temporary increases in police numbers or targeted
operations can have a noticeable impact on crime statistics.
These police activity driven increases in recorded offences can
lead to public concern about a crime problem when the actual
volume of crime occurring in the area has not changed.
Researchers have highlighted that some communities,
particularly First Peoples communities, have a higher police-
to-citizen ratio than other communities leading to criticism
that those communities are over-policed (Cunneen, 2019). That
is, the proportionately higher numbers of police in those
communities leads to increased offence detection and high
numbers and rates of offending in the police recorded crime
data.
Technological advances have also served to increase police
ability to detect offences. In some localities monitored CCTV
networks in public places increase surveillance with control
room operators reporting offences and in real time and
directing police to the offender. Automatic number plate
recognition technologies fitted to police vehicles enable police
to easily detect unregistered vehicles, along with unlicensed
and disqualified drivers. Drug detection dogs enable police to
quickly and effectively identify people carrying drugs within a

crowd. Adoption of these and other technologies all serve to
increase detection and in turn the recording of offences.
How the police count and respond to reported offences can
also significantly impact recorded crime statistics. Offences are
counted in police recorded crime data at the time of recording,
not the date of offence. A sudden increase in victims reporting
of historical offences to police can therefore produce a spike
in the current year’s crime statistics. Consider for example the
significant increase in reported sexual offence victimisation
between 2011 and 2017. During that period, police recorded
sexual assault victimisation in Australia increased 26% from
83.3 to 105 per 100,000 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2023).
However, this increase in reported sexual assault needs to be
understood in context of the prevailing social situation.
Between 2013 and 2017, the Royal Commission into Institutional
Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was in operation conducting
hearings throughout Australia and making 2,575 referrals to
authorities including the police. With much of the royal
commission’s work focused on historical matters, a significant
proportion, if not all, of those referrals related to historical
offending. Consequently, as the Australian Institute of Health
and Welfare (2020) notes, it is unclear whether the steep
increase in reported sexual assault victimisation during that
period reflects an actual increase in sexual assaults, the
increased reporting of historical crimes or some other
explanation.
Changes in policing practices can also impact recorded
crime statistics. In Queensland between 2015 and 2016 there
was a 16.9% increase in the number of recorded assaults, which
continued to increase over subsequent years (Figure 2.4). This
increase is in part likely attributed to implementation of the
recommendations of the Special Taskforce on Domestic and
Family Violence in Queensland which, in its 2015 report Not
Now, Not Ever, recommended increased criminal prosecution
of domestic violence offenders. This was in stark contrast to

the previous practice where police responded only by seeking
a domestic violence protection order against the offender. This
change in practice served to bring some of the dark figure of
crime into the recorded police offence data.
Figure 2.4: Assaults, Queensland, 2013-2008. (Data Source:

Queensland Police Services)
Changes in counting rules can also serve to reduce the number

of recorded offences. In January 2002, the Queensland Police
Service changed its counting rules to not count wilful damage
1
offences if they were ancillary to an unlawful entry offence
(Queensland Police Service, 2010). Many break an enter
offences are facilitated by performing some act of damage,
1. This means that if an alleged perpetrator was going to be

charged with an unlawful entry offence, then they would not
also be counted as having a willful damage offence.

such as breaking a window or door. Prior to January 2002 both
the wilful damage and break and enter offences were counted
in the recorded crime data. However, with the 2002 change
in counting rules, the number of wilful damage offences
decreased 31.6% compared to the prior year, down from 1,736.45
to 1,187.31 per 100,000.
Victim Reporting
Variations in victims’ willingness to report offences also affects

recorded crime. These variations can have a significant impact
upon the number of recorded offences. The range of factors
influencing whether or not victims report to police include:
fear of repercussion; victim perceptions of the seriousness of
offending; the relationship between the victim and offender;
perceptions of police; demographic; and, cultural factors (Xie
& Bumer, 2019). Figure 2.5 shows how variations in victim
reporting can impact recorded offences and give the
appearance that crime is increasing or decreasing.
Figure 2.5: Victim Reporting and Crime Statistics

Impacts
Changes in the number of victims reporting their

victimisation to police can give the appearance of
increases or decreases in crime over time. In 2012/13,
the ABS Crime Survey reported a substantial
reduction in the proportion of assault victims
reporting the offence to the police.

Year Told Police Didn't Tell Police
2010/11 50.7 49.3
2011/12 49.0 50.4
2012/13 37.2 62.8
2012/14 51.5 47.0

2014/15 54.7 45.1
2015/16 54.9 45
2016/17 53.8 45.5
2017/18 51.8 47.6
A reduction in victim reporting serves to reduce

the number of recorded offences. Conversely, an
increase in the proportion of victims reporting to
the police leads to increases in recorded crime.
If each year there were consistently 100 assaults

per year, and the only thing that changes was
whether or not the victims reported to the police,
the trend in recorded assaults for 2010/11 to 2017/18
is:

Rates of victim reporting to the police
However, the 38.4% increase in assaults between

2012/13 and 2013/14 is attributed solely to an increase
in victim reporting, not an increase in actual
assaults.
Data Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Crime

Victimisation, Australia 2010/11 – 2017/18.
Counting Rules
When publishing reported offence data some agencies only
publish the most serious or principal offence. It is not unusual
for a person to be charged with multiple offences from a single
event. Consider the case of an offender who breaks into a home
and then uses the resident’s car keys to steal their motor
vehicle. Two offences have occurred: break and enter and
unlawful use (stealing) of the motor vehicle. However, in
publishing crime data some agencies and publications will

only record the most serious of the two offences. In Australia,
the principle offence is determined according to the Australian
Bureau of Statistics’ National Offence Index which ranks
offence categories contained in the ANZSOC.
Finally, it should always be remembered that offence data
is a count of offences, not offenders. One of the iron laws of
criminology is that a relatively small proportion of people are
responsible for the majority of offences. This is often expressed
by reference to the Pareto Principle, or 80-20 rule, which in
criminology holds that 20% of offenders will be responsible
for 80% of offences. While the actual percentages may not be
80-20, research consistently finds that a large proportion of
offences are committed by a comparatively small number of
people. In very recent times this has led to some jurisdictions
publishing data on unique offenders. The Queensland
Government Statistician’s Office (2023) has recently adopted
this practice and for the 2021/22 year found that the 524,145
recorded offences were committed by only 102,849 unique
offenders.
Temporal Factors
Adding further complexity to our interpretation of crime data

is the often-observed seasonality in crime, along with changed
social conditions. Two commonly observed trends in recorded
data are the increase of violent crime during summer months
and increase in property crime during school holiday periods.
Seasonal variations in crime render comparisons of crime
statistics over short time period problematic. For that reason,
criminologists often examine crime statistics over longer time
periods, typically years, to ensure that seasonal effects are
appropriately considered. Changed social conditions, for
example those experienced during COVID-19 lockdowns, can

also result in changes in the type and volume of crime
committed.
Changes in crime and crime trends in response to COVID-19
lockdowns is currently fertile ground for criminological
research. While changes in recorded crime may be an artefact
of the data measurement and collection process, it may also be
that the actual number of offenders and offences committed
has increased or decreased in response to seasonal and social
factors.
Court Data
Courts also collect administrative data to manage their

organisational functions. In almost all cases offender charge
data from police and other prosecting agencies, such as
regulatory agencies, are transmitted initially to Magistrates
Courts (referred to as Local Courts in some jurisdictions) and
Children’s Courts. The majority of defendants are finalised in
these lower courts. This is because the majority of offending
is less serious in nature. More serious offences are transmitted
to higher courts which incorporated the Supreme Court and
intermediate courts (such as the District Court, referred to the
County Court in Victoria).
Court data provide insights into how defendants progress
through the court process. In 2021/22, 488,936 defendants
were finalised in Australian courts (Australian Bureau of
Statistics, 2023). While the vast majority of defendants are
adjudicated, a sizeable proportion are not. In 2021/22 for
example, 11.9% of Magistrates Court and 14.4% of Higher Courts
defendants were not adjudicated. Non-adjudication arises
from circumstances such as the prosecution withdrawing the
charge or the charge being transmitted to another court. Of
adjudicated offenders, the majority plead or are proven guilty.

In 2021/22, 79% of adjudicated defendants with a guilty
outcome had pleaded guilty.
Where significant variation arises between courts is in the
penalty. The vast majority of Magistrates Court and Children’s
Court defendants receive a non-custodial penalty. In the
Magistrates Court this is usually a monetary fine. However,
consistent with higher courts determining the most serious
offences, the majority of defendants finalised in those courts
receive a custodial sentence. Of all defendants finalised in 2021/
22, only 10% of defendants were sentenced to a custody
sentence within a correctional centre.
Similar to police data, there are a number of nuances to
consider when interpreting court data. First, court data
typically reports the number of finalised defendants.
Remembering that a relatively small proportion of offenders
commit a large proportion of offending, those offenders will
have multiple court finalisations with each adding to the count
of finalised defendants. Therefore, the actual number of unique
defendants finalised by courts will be less than the data
indicate. Court finalisation data is also typically reported for
the principal offence for each finalisation rather than all
finalisations. It is important to remember that court finalisation
data relates to all prosecutions, not just those brought by
traditional law enforcement bodies. Prosecutions brought by
regulatory agencies, local governments and others with
responsibility for enforcing criminal and quasi-criminal matters
are all captured in court finalisation data. The Australian
Bureau of Statistics publishes its Criminal Courts, Australia
series annually to provide national and jurisdictional specific
court data.
Courts may also collect and publish non-criminal court data
that helps to understand the dark figure of crime. In
jurisdictions where domestic violence is treated as a civil
matter, where finalisation is by a protection order rather than

a penalty, some courts publish data on the number of orders
made.
Corrections Data
Where a court finalisation occurs by way of an imprisonment

order or community-based corrections order such as probation
or community service, details of the defendant and penalty
appear in corrections data. The population of offenders in
custody or under corrections supervision is constantly
changing. On an almost daily basis, new defendants are
sentenced and those who have completed their sentence are
released from custody or complete their court-imposed orders.
The total number of people who have been incarcerated
during a year can therefore be much greater than the prison
population at any given point in time. This is particularly true
when a high proportion of prisoners are serving a short
sentence.
In Australia two sets of national corrections data are
published. To provide an annual snapshot of the corrections
population, prisoner census data as of 30 June each year is
published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in its Prisoners
in Australia series. However, to understand the fluctuations
that occur within a 12-month period, many jurisdictions,
including Australia and New Zealand, publish quarterly
corrections statistics. The Australian Bureau of Statistics
publication Corrective Service, Australia illuminates the
fluctuation of prisoners and people under community-based
corrections order by providing the number of receptions and
releases in the quarter.
Corrections data collections typically provide criminology
researchers two important data metrics: the rate of
imprisonment and proportion of prisoners who return to
custody. As discussed earlier, increases in population often lead

to an increase in police recorded offences. This results in
increases in recorded offences, more people being adjudicated
by courts, and an increase in the corrections population. To
meaningfully compare corrections populations over time and
between different jurisdictions the rate of prisoners per 100,000
adult population is often calculated. Similar to the formula for
calculating the rate of offences, the rate of imprisonment is
calculated by dividing the average daily prisoner population by
the adult population and multiplying by 100,000.
Rehabilitation is one of the core functions of corrections in
western liberal democracies. To achieve that goal, correctional
agencies invest in a wide range of programs and activities
designed to address offender’s criminogenic needs.
Performance against that goal is commonly measured by the
proportion of prisoners who have a prior prison experience.
Prisoners in Australia, 2023 data shows that 61% of Australian
prisoners in custody on 30 June 2023 had a previously been in
prison.
Crime and Justice Research Agencies
In addition to criminal justice agencies publishing their

administrative data and the Australian Bureau of Statistics
consolidating those data to produce a national picture, a
number of governments have established dedicated crime and
justice research agencies. In Australia the first federal
government crime research entity was the Australian Institute
of Criminology, established in 1973. Since that time state based
crime and justice research entities have been established in
jurisdictions including:
• New South Wales with its Bureau of Crime Statistics and

Research (BOCSAR)
• Victoria with its Crime Statistics Agency

Other jurisdictions have established dedicated crime research
functions as business units of agencies separate from the
criminal justice agencies.
Having dedicated crime and justice research functions
outside of individual criminal justice agencies has a number
of benefits, including the ability to take a system-wide
perspective, along with the capability and capacity to explore
specific crime issues and trends. Take research on homicides
as an example. Each State and Territory’s police service collects
data on recorded homicides and publishes basic information
such as the number of recorded homicides, along with date
and location information. The Australian Bureau of Statistics
consolidates that information at the national level and provides
additional details such as consistent location categories.
However, the Australian Institute of Criminology through its
National Homicide Monitoring Program accesses agencies’
data holdings to provide additional contextual information at
the national level on factors including weapon use, offender-
victim relationship, alcohol and drug use in the offence, mental
health and criminal histories of offenders.
Limitations of Quantitative Data
All data and research have limitations. As this chapter

highlights, crime is measured quantitatively and categorised
by reference to offence definitions and the ANZSOC offence
classification scheme. This process masks qualitative
differences that may occur between offences within the same
category. To illustrate this point, consider these two unlawful
entry scenarios. In the first scenario the offender breaks into
a house during daylight hours by opening an unlocked door
while the occupants are absent at work. In the second scenario
the offender forces entry to a house at night while the
occupants are home and asleep. In both scenarios the offender

has committed an unlawful entry, which would be counted
and considered as equivalent offences in the data. However,
in these scenarios the level of impact that the offending has
upon the victim may be substantially different. In response to
challenges such as this, researchers are increasingly exploring
the use of crime harm indexes as a means of measuring crime
(van Ruitenburg & Ruiter, 2023).
CONCLUSION
Crime measurement and the interpretation of crime statistics

is complex. Fluctuations in crime statistics, particularly sharp
increases, can be a source of significant community concern.
However, as this chapter has highlighted, fluctuations can
result from many sources, which do not necessarily result from
an actual increase in offending. Indeed, teasing apart the
source of the variation to identify the underlying reason –
whether it is an artefact of changed policing practices, the
data collection and reporting process, victim reporting, or
sometimes a genuine increase in offending – can be
challenging. However, when hearing of increases in crime the
savvy consumer of crime statistics is more likely to respond
with “that’s interesting,” followed by an inquisitive examination
of the data, rather than immediate concern. While this chapter
has focused on understanding the nuances of crime data
which give the appearance of their being increases or
decreases in crime, it must be remembered that the actual
level of crime in society often does change over time. Other
chapters in this text will explore some of the criminological
theories and factors that can produce actual changes in crime.


here:
justice/?p=57#h5p-7
1. How might social and historical factors affect

crime trends in the next five years?
2. How can it be there is a reported 35% increase
in violent crime, yet the number of crime victims
has not changed?
3. Name three common errors that people and
the media make when talking about increases in
crime?

REFERENCES
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2023). Criminal Courts,

Australia, 2021 – 2022. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/
crime-and-justice/criminal-courts-australia/latest-release
Australia Bureau of Statistics. (2023). Recorded Crime –
Victims, 2022. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-
and-justice/recorded-crime-victims/latest-release
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2020). Sexual
assault in Australia. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/family-
domestic-and-sexual-violence/sexual-assault-in-australia/
contents/summary
Bartlett, D., Ransley, J., Forrester, L., & Middendorp, K. (2020).
Corporate crime in Australia: The extent of the problem. Trends
& issues in crime and criminal justice no. 613. Australian
Institute of Criminology. https://doi.org/10.52922/ti04817
Cunneen, C. (2019). Criminalisation and Policing in
Indigenous Communities. In L. Behrendt, C. Cunneen, T.
Libesman and N. Watson (Eds.) Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Legal Relations (2nd Ed) (pp. 89 – 107). Oxford.
Dejong, K., Olyaei, A., & Lo, J. O. (2019). Alcohol use in
pregnancy. Clinical obstetrics and gynecology, 62(1), 142 – 155.
doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000414
Findlay, M., Odgers, S., & Yeo, S. (2010). Australian Criminal
Justice (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Queensland Government Statistician’s Office. (2023). Crime
report, Queensland, 2021–22. Queensland Treasury.
Queensland Police Service. (2010). Annual Statistical Review
2009-2010.
Ransley, J., & Prenzler, T. (2020). Defining Crime. In H. Hayes
and T. Prenzler (Eds.), An Introduction to Crime and
Criminology (5e) (pp. 17 – 34). Pearson Australia.
van Ruitenburg, T., & Ruiter, S. (2023) The adoption of a crime

harm index: A scoping literature review, Police Practice and
Research, 24(4), 423-445, DOI: 10.1080/15614263.2022.2125873
Weatherburn, D. (2011). Uses and abuses of crime statistics.
Crime and Justice Bulletin: Contemporary Issues in crime and
justice no. 153. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Publications/CJB/cjb153.pdf
Xie, M., & Baumer, E.P. (2019). Crime Victims’ Decisions to Call
the Police: Past Research and New Directions. Annual Review
of Criminology, 2, 217-240. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
criminol-011518-024748

3. Victims and
Offenders
JEFFREY ACKERMAN AND MARIANNE HAALAND
Learning Objectives
• Be able to understand the trends in offender

characteristics and the potential relationship
between these characteristics and criminal
behavior.
• Be able to understand the trends in victim
characteristics and the potential relationship
between these characteristics and criminal
behavior.
• Critically assess the concept of the “victim-
offender overlap” and be able to begin to
hypothesise reasons for this experience.
64 | Victims and Offenders

Before You Begin
• What was the last crime film you saw? Think

about the characteristics of the offender. Did they
seem like someone you wanted to hang out with?
• What about the victim? Would you be their
friend?
• How do these media depicted images of
offenders and victims affect your thinking about
how to prevent crime? Rehabilitate individuals
who commit crime?
INTRODUCTION
When you think about the word “criminal,” what image do

you see? Many university students studying criminology and
criminal justice have visions of people who look like the law-
breakers depicted in popular television shows or movies. Many
fictional criminals in the entertainment industry are middle-
aged (35 to 60 years of age), attractive and smart. They are
often sophisticated, drive expensive cars and wear expensive
clothes. They often have elaborate plans to steal great fortunes
in bank robberies, armored car heists or complex financial
transgressions. Or we see the polar opposite: people with a
disheveled appearance, wearing gritty clothes, who come from
Victims and Offenders | 65

a troubled background. These fictional criminals may be
engaged in organised crime, drug dealing or other street-level
crimes. If we go back in time a few decades, these fictional
criminals were mostly men. More recently, however, the
entertainment industry has depicted women in these criminal
1
mastermind roles . And in most cases, fictional female
criminals are depicted as very attractive, impeccably dressed
villains who use their charm and allure as part of their criminal
persona.
Along with showing devastatingly attractive police and
criminals, television shows and movies depict elaborate “cat-
and-mouse” games where detectives and criminals try to
outsmart each other during intricate investigations and
complex legal battles. Victims, detectives and witnesses are
depicted as “good” in most ways, while offenders are depicted
as “bad” or “evil.” The sharp good/bad distinctions between
television criminals and their victims tends to remain stable
over time. In other words, once a fictional young person
decides to become an offender, they continue to offend as
they get older, regardless of what changes in their lives. For
example, movies sometimes start with a criminal being
2
released from prison only to rapidly return to their life of crime .
These various fictional depictions imply that solutions to crime
primarily involve hiring smarter detectives and longer prison
sentences for offenders.
When most people think about a “criminal” they don’t
envision a criminal looking like themselves – perhaps a young
adult (17 to 24 years old) who could come from a wide variety
of backgrounds. Most people also don’t envision someone who
1. The new Netflix series Griselda starring Sophia Vergara is good

example of such a show.
2. A classic reference to this storyline is Ocean’s 11, starring
George Clooney, Bratt Pitt, and Julia Roberts.

has committed an offense or two when young, but goes on to
lead crime free life as they enter adulthood.
The accuracy of these different versions of a typical criminal
has important policy implications for the criminal justice
system. For example, should a government spend more tax
money detaining young offenders for long periods of time,
should it fund more prevention initiatives for young children, or
should it concentrate upon the rehabilitation or incapacitation
of known offenders? How does it decide?
In this chapter, we discuss the reality of the characteristics
that appear among individuals who commit crime.
Criminologists sometimes call these “predictors” of crime or
3
“risk-factors” of crime (or the opposite – “protective-factors”) .
As an example of what a criminologist means by a predictor
or risk-factor of crime, imagine selecting 100 people at random
and dividing them into two groups based upon who has
committed a crime and who has not. Also imagine that 15
people committed crimes while 85 did not. Which
characteristics (like biological sex and age) would we find more
frequently among the offender group and which would we
find more frequently among the non-offender group? It is
likely that males would be about 80% of the offender group,
while females only 20%. Young adults would likely make up
around 60% of the offender group while people over the age of
40 might comprise only 10% of the offenders.
In these cases we might say that being male and a young
adult are risk-factors, while being over 40 years of age and
3. Sometimes these risk- and protective-factors are called crime

“correlates,” a more technical term you may hear in a statistics
or research methods class. A parallel term is “correlation,”
which can also be called a “pattern,” “link,” “association” or
“relationship.” We will start with offender characteristics and
then discuss the characteristics of victims.

female are protective-factors. Both types of differences might
be called “predictors” or “correlates” by an academic
criminologist, who might also proclaim that there was a
“correlation,” “association,” or “relationship” between these
factors and crime.
We will look at the major risk and protective factors now. As
we do, keep in mind that no one is destined to commit crime
just because she or he possess one or more risk factors. In fact,
the majority of individuals who have all of the risk factors we
will discuss will never commit a serious crime, just as 85 people
out of the 100 in the last example did not offend.
Offender Characteristics
Biological Sex
One of the strongest and most consistent of patterns we see

when examining links between individual characteristics and
crime is that males commit far more crimes than do females.
Most textbooks suggest that these sex differences in offending
are globally true for all major crime classifications during all
historical periods of time (Moffitt et al., 2001).
Sex differences in offenders’ choice of victims also exist,
however, which can somewhat complicate this general rule.
Infanticide, the act of a parent killing their own very young
child, for example, is committed by more mothers than fathers,
although the legal system still classifies the underlying offense
as murder, a serious crime where males make up over 80%
of all offenders. For this reason, the accuracy of claims about
males always committing more crime than females across all
crime classifications may depend on how we define, classify
and even measure different crime categories.
Criminologists have often spoken about male/female

differences in offending using terms like the “female share”
or “female percentage” of crime (Jeffries & Newbold, 2016;
Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996). Criminologists have also used
terms like the “gender gap” rather that the “sex gap” in
offending during times when there was less recognition of the
differences between biological sex and gender.
Table 3.1 shows the total number of offenses in Australia and
4
the percentage of females who have committed the offenses .
Notice that the smallest female percentage (the largest sex
gap) occurs with sexual assault, where females have
committed only 3.7% of these offenses in the 2008-2009 time
frame and 7.2% of these offenses in 2002-2023. In contrast,
males and females committed offenses related to theft more
equally. For theft, the female share was 43.8% in the 2008-2009
period and 41.6% in 2022-2023.
4. This is for all offenses where there is a known offender. In

many cases, the police may not know who has committed the
crime.

Table 3.1 Recorded Offenders, Australia
2008-2009 2022-2023
Total Female Total Female

Number Number % Number Number %
Homicide and
related 816 106 13.0% 627 112 17.9%
offences
Acts intended
72069 15226 21.1% 91007 23136 25.4%
to cause injury
Sexual assault
and related 6340 234 3.7% 9531 683 7.2%
offences
Robbery,
extortion and
3911 542 13.9% 4016 844 21.0%
related
offences
Unlawful
entry with 15887 2084 13.1% 11338 2219 19.6%
intent
Theft and
related 58941 25810 43.8% 35201 14656 41.6%
offenses
Fraud,
deception and
10138 3323 32.8% 8869 3093 34.9%
related
offences
Illict drugs
56310 11051 19.6% 52315 13315 25.5%
offences
Prohitibited
and regulated
8962 583 9.5% 12757 1910 15%
weapons and
explosives
Property
damage and
21953 3557 16.2% 14367 3115 21.7%
environmental
pollution
Public order
65962 13405 20.3% 36841 8617 23.4%
offences
Total 321289 76191 23.7% 276869 71690 25.9%

Data Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2024). Recorded
Crime - Offenders
If you examine the female share of the offenses in Table 3.1
closely, and compare over the time periods shown, you will
notice that the female share in many of the crime categories
has increased. The female share of robbery offenses, for
example, has increased from 13.9% in 2008-2009 to 21.0% in
2022-2023, while the female share of offenses involving
prohibited weapons (and explosives) has increased from 9.5%
to 15% during those same time intervals. These gender trends
are not unique to Australia (Beatton et al., 2018). Criminologist
have observed similar trends in other countries and have
debated about the reasons for these patterns since the
mid-1970s when Freda Adler (1975) and Rita Simon (1975) wrote
about changing crime-sex patterns they saw in the United
5
States . Both authors concluded that changing gender-role
expectations as well as the women’s movement were
responsible for the apparent increases in female offense rates.
While many criminologists have accepted the rising female
share of crime as fact, some criminologists in the United States
have remained skeptical about whether this change accurately
reflects changes in female offending behaviour or whether the
types of patterns we see in Table 3.1 result from changes in
the ways criminal justice agencies investigate, arrest, charge
or convict different offenders (Steffensmeier et al., 2023;
Steffensmeier et al., 2005; Steffensmeier et al., 2006). The
skeptics suggest, for example, that police officers may have
5. Professor Freda Adler is one of the most well known feminist

scholars in criminology. She is very well regarded for her
theorietical contributions over the years. If you want to learn
more about her and her work, check out this interview with
Profesor Jay Albanese for the Oral History project of the
American Society of Criminology.

been more lenient with women and young girls in the past
and did not arrest or charge them to the same degree as men
and young boys, even if the males and females committed
equivalent crimes (Krohn et al., 1983). In other words, in the
past, police officers may have been acting in a more chivalrous
fashion toward women (Chesney-Lind, 1978; Tjaden & Tjaden,
1981; Visher, 1983).Some have argued that a similar pattern of
chivalry may be true for judges. For example, even if the police
arrested and charged men and women to the exact same
degree, judges who believe that females are not as deserving
of punishment as males may not find females guilty of offenses
as often as they do males, or may not sentence women to
prison as often (Daly & Tonry, 1997).
Although several criminologists have suggested that judges
may sentence women more leniently than men for reasons
related to chivalry, other criminologists argue that judges may
order less severe sentences for women to protect their family
members, such as young children, rather than the female
offender herself (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001). Interestingly,
many of the skeptical criminologists who do not believe that
the female share of offending is actually rising believe that
there is also little evidence to support lenient treatment of
women by most judges (Steffensmeier et al., 1993;
Steffensmeier et al., 1998; Visher, 1983).
The differential treatment of women may also apply to the
people who are victims of crime. If crime victims do not view
female criminality as serious and as deserving of punishment
as they view male criminality, they may be less likely to notify
the police if a female offender is caught, or they may request
the police not to charge a female offender even if the police are
notified (Hindelang, 1979). For example, a victim of a relatively
minor crime that has occurred on school grounds may request
that a school principal rather than the police administer
appropriate offender discipline.
An important point to note about Table 3.1 is that it relies

upon measuring crime (determining how much crime has
been committed) using records of known offenders – one type
of “administrative” or “official” data – a topic covered in Chapter
2. The reason why this point is important relates to whether
the female share of crime is actually increasing (as most
criminologists believe), or whether the increases may be due
to a greater emphasis on notifying the police about female
offenders and/or the police charging a greater number of the
female offenders reported to them (Steffensmeier et al., 2005).
Another reason why this point is important is because it
illustrates a primary reason why it can be difficult to definitively
solve ongoing debates in criminology and criminal justice.
Some evidence and data suggest one answer to an important
question, while other evidence and data suggest a different
answer. The fact that administrative data does not contain the
“dark-figure” of crime – in other words, crime not reported to
the police or other similar agency – makes finding the answers
to certain questions about crime more challenging.
If trends in female crime do reflect actual changes in the
behavior of women and younger girls, why have these changes
occurred and why do the male/female differences exist in the
first place? Is it biological differences? What exactly is different
in the biology of males and females? If male/female differences
in crime have their basis in something biological (e.g., males
have much more testosterone than do females) and
differences in biology have not changed over time, then it
would seem that male/female differences in crime cannot be
due solely to biology. If instead, the sex differences are caused
by the way that young girls and boys have been raised by their
parents, taught in our schools, or treated by our communities,
what exactly has changed and what might these changing
patterns mean in terms of the ways that parents should raise
children? These are some of the important research questions
a criminologist might seek to answer on topics related to sex
and crime. They are also questions a criminal justice

professional might need to consider if they become
responsible for ensuring that adequate resources are available
to manage potential future increases in the number female
offenders.
Age
When examining the relationship between age and crime we

see another very strong and consistent pattern. Figure 3.1
shows the proportion of arrests made by police in different age
group categories. As in our discussions about sex and gender,
we would certainly see similar patterns if we examined data
from another county because quite similar patterns are
observed globally. This figure shows that young people
between the ages of 15 to 24 commit the most crime. This is
true for all crime categories shown, although the peak age is
slightly different for different offense types. For example, the
age range where people commit the most drug and public
order offenses is 19-20 while for the other offenses shown, it is
in the 15–17 year-old range.

Figure 3.1: Offender Rate by Age, Australia, 2022-2023 Data Source:
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2024). Recorded Crime – Offenders.
The pattern(s) we see in Figure 3.1 have become known in

criminology as the age-crime curve (Hirschi & Gottfredson,
1983; Wolfgang et al., 1987). While researchers understand
some of the underlying reasons for these patterns, there is not
yet complete agreement about all of possible reasons these
age patterns exist. We can be certain, however, that the
increases around 10 years of age occur for two primary reasons.
First, young people around that age are growing bigger and
stronger and can stray further away from their parents. Around
10 years old is when they start to become more independent
and interact more with people outside the home. This makes
crime more possible for them. Second, we simply do not
consider the types of behaviours that very young children (e.g.,
under age 10) engage in as being “criminal” in nature. If you’ve
ever spent time with an infant or toddler, you know that they
often pull hair, hit, and even take another child’s toy without

permission. When this happens, we don’t call the police and
the police don’t charge children with criminal offenses. In fact,
we know that the peak of the aggressive behavior is most likely
around 2-3 years old, something that parents call the “terrible-
twos” (Green, 2014). Most countries, including Australia, require
a child to be at least 10 years old before even the juvenile justice
system might consider their aggressive behavior a youth
offense (Commission, 2021) and there have been suggestions to
6
raise the minimum age even higher (Crofts, 2023) .
Unlike data for 10-year-olds, the crime upticks during the 15-
to 24-year-old range are not just a matter of definition. This
increase in deviant behavior is consistent over time. There are
many potential reasons for this, which we explore in the
following chpaters in this book. Some explanations are that
as adolescents get older, they become more interested in
spending time with their friends and less time with their
parents (Sampson & Laub, 1993). Many have become almost as
big as full-grown adults and will be able to drive cars, which can
take them further away from their homes and the supervision
of adults (Ackerman & Rossmo, 2015). Teenagers and young
adults often start to care more about what their friends think
than what their parents think (Berndt, 1979; Harris, 1995; Warr,
2002). Many conform to social pressures to commit acts of
minor youth crime or even more serious criminal actions (Warr,
1993). All of these things likely contribute to the increase in
criminal behavior during the teen years.
By the time that people become 35 years old, their offending
tends to slow down greatly (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983). Most
will have jobs by this time. They wake up for work earlier in the
morning. Engaging in a crime may not only get them in legal
6. For more information about what age groups are considered

children or youth, check out this interesting article on age by
the United Nations.

trouble, but may also jeopardise their employment. Many will
marry and have children to care for, and subsequently will not
be able to spend as much time with friends late at night when
there are more offending opportunities.
The generalised age-crime patterns shown in Figure 3.1 do
not apply to all offenders. Instead, what we see in Figure 3.1
are the patterns that occur when we examine a large group
of individuals and create a rate of the number of offenders
per 100,000 people in different age brackets (what some call
an aggregate pattern). Terrie Moffitt and her colleagues were
among the first to suggest that while most offenders follow
the general age-crime curve closely (a group that she called
“adolescent-limited offenders”), a small group of persistent
offenders do not follow this pattern, and instead continue
offending into later stages of life (1993). She classified this
group, “life-course-persistent offenders.” You will learn more
about this theory in Chapter 13.
Socioeconomic Status
Official/administrative data about the socioeconomic status

of offenders in Australia is generally less available than
information like biological sex or age. We can get a somewhat
reasonable understanding of the relationship between
socioeconomic status and crime in Australia by examining
offenders’ employment status (Baumer, 2002; Quee et al.,
2023). Information about employment status may come from
different sources like police arrest information or from
information collected by a state department of corrections.
Figure 3.2 indicates that among Australian prisoners, 46%
were unemployed just before they entered prison and another
13% were unable to work for disability, age or health reasons.
We also know that prisoners have below average education
and literacy – factors that are strongly associated with

socioeconomic status and income. What may be unclear,
however, is what exactly can we conclude from these patterns?
Does a lack of education and the often associated poverty
come first and make people more crime prone, or does
something else come before both?
Figure 3.2: Employment Before Prison, Australia, 2022 Data Source:

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2024). Recorded Crime – Offenders.
As an example of a common precursor to both socioeconomic

status and crime, criminologists often speak about low self-
control, something you will hear more about in Chapter 9,
which essentially means an inability to delay a reward in ways
that avoid violating criminal laws and other social norms
(Mischel et al., 1989). For example, most of us desire more
money to spend, but individuals with high self-control will
normally wait until they earn it, while those with low self-
control may act impulsively and steal the money instead. The
development of self-control typically occurs very early in life
(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), before individuals start to commit
criminal offenses and before they start to learn important job
skills that can help them make a higher salary and increase
their socioeconomic status. For these reasons, perhaps low self-

control causes crime to become more likely while also making
it more likely that people who have low self-control will have
low socioeconomic status.
Another important thing to consider when examining the
patterns between socioeconomic status and crime is that the
offenses easiest to detect, investigate and prosecute are those
sometimes called “street” crimes: offenses like robbery,
burglary and theft. While almost anyone has the skills and
opportunity to commit a street offense, only certain people
have the opportunity to commit what has become known as
“white collar crime.” Recall from earlier chapters that “white
collar” crimes are those committed by individuals who hold
certain jobs or who otherwise have high social status and the
associated opportunities to commit financially lucrative
offenses such as securities fraud, embezzlement, bribery and
money laundering (Sutherland, 1949). These types of offenses
are typically much more difficult to detect and harder for law
enforcement personnel to bring the offender to justice.
Although the public often perceives white-collar crime as less
harmful than street crime (Cullen et al., 1982; Rossi et al., 1974),
white collar offenses often result in very substantial losses for
large groups of individuals, investors, businesses, and
governments (Reiman, 2001). White collar environmental
crimes that involve the illegal disposal of hazardous waste can
result in the destruction of entire communities, making them
unsafe places to live (Murdock et al., 1999). These serious
offenses can also result in serious physical harm in the form of
increased risks of cancer and other serious health conditions
for people living in effected areas.
The main point is that individuals can only commit crimes
for which they have opportunities (Cohen & Felson, 1979).
Although almost everyone has the opportunity to break into
someone’s home, why would a corporate executive who wants
to steal money bother with such a petty crime when they have
access to steal thousands, if not millions, of dollars thanks to

their job? A classic book by Jeffrey Reiman sums up the
complications regarding the patterns between socioeconomic
status and crime with the catchy title, “The rich get richer and
the poor get prison” (1998). In other words, the relationship
between socioeconomic status and crime we see when looking
at administrative data may not reflect an important portion
of the “dark-figure” in crime mentioned in the last chapter
– that while the “street” crimes committed by the poor and
middle-class are often detected and prosecuted, the “suite”
crimes of the rich, often go undetected. Furthermore, even
when white collar crimes are detected, they are often more
difficult to investigate and prosecute, and therefore the
offenders often remain unpunished and unrecorded
(Braithwaite, 1981).
Race / Ethnicity
The term “race” has often been used to categorise people

based upon physical attributes such as skin colour, facial
features, or hair type. Historically, this term has been used in
a largely inaccurate way by implying that there are far more
genetic differences among people than there actually are. The
term “ethnicity” is often used as an alternative to describe
matters more closely tied to cultural identity, shared history
and traditions. When we speak about race or ethnicity in
Australia, we often contrast First Nations peoples with
Australia’s non-Indigenous population. When race is discussed
in other western countries like the United States, it is often in
regard to the two largest minority groups in that country, Black
Americans and Hispanic/Latino Americans.
The association between race/ethnicity and crime is even
more complex and contentious than the association between
socio-economic status and crime because race and/or
ethnicity is strongly intertwined with socioeconomic status in

Australia, as it is in many other countries. More specifically,
minority groups in most western countries usually have a lower
average family income and associated socioeconomic status
as do non-minority groups (Sampson & Wilson, 1995), often
due to reasons related to institutionalised racism and
intergenerational trauma.
For this reason, it can be difficult to differentiate the effects
of socioeconomic status from other matters associated with
ethnicity when examining the patterns between these
characteristics and crime. What is clear, is that Australia’s First
Nations peoples represent approximately 2% of the population,
but a much higher proportion of those arrested and jailed.
Although some of the over-representation in the criminal
justice system may be attributed to lower socioeconomic
status, some authors also suggest that historical colonisation,
dispossession and disadvantage (Baker, 2001), along with a
declining cultural heritage and social isolation (LaPrairie, 1997)
has contributed to these problems. We discuss this more in
Chapter 14.
Similar arguments have been made about the cultural
adaptations that Black Americans have been forced to make
due to the historical and continuing race-based residential
inequality in that country (Sampson & Wilson, 1995). For
example, ethnic background can affects the choices of where
someone lives in ways related to crime. Where someone lives
may be constrained by the segregation of lower socioeconomic
status groups to “poorer” areas of a town or city. This has
occurred very purposefully in some countries using
discriminatory practices such as those commonly practiced in
the United States during the 1930s to the 1960s. The
discrimination involved a systematic denial of different services
including loans, insurance, and financial assistance in certain
neighborhoods that were typically inhabited by minority
populations, especially African Americans and other people of
colour. These various practices became known as “red-lining,” a

name taken from the use of a red line drawn on maps around
select neighborhoods where the practices took place (Winling
& Michney, 2021). The reasons why this is related to crime may
become a bit more clear in the next section about place and
urbanisation.
Place / Urbanisation
Criminal events do not occur with the same frequency in

different areas (Braithwaite & Biles, 1980). Instead, there are
certain crime-prone cities, suburbs, streets, buildings and even
individual businesses (Weatherburn, 2001). Some
criminologists call these crime-prone places “hot-spots”
(Sherman et al., 1989) and call the patterns describing how
much crime occurs in these different places (or space) the
“spatial distribution” of crime (Rossmo et al., 2012). Interestingly,
the reasons underlying why certain areas become hot-spots
is more complicated than simply having more crime-prone
people who live or visit these areas.
The origins of this line of enquiry have roots in the
sociological study of immigration in the city of Chicago in the
United States. During the early 1900s, University of Chicago
sociologists Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay examined what
occurred in Chicago when new immigrants looking for
employment opportunities that were not available in their
country of origin started off their lives in their new country by
living near Chicago’s central business district next to the noise
and pollution of the factories (Shaw & McKay, 1942). The new
immigrants lived in the least desirable areas of the city because
that is all they could afford. It may be no surprise to learn that
the crime rate of this area was relatively high. Perhaps also
unsurprising is that the people who lived in this high crime
area were blamed for the crime problems. Because the new
immigrants came from foreign countries where the cultures

and traditions were often quite different from the existing
Chicago residents, many people blamed the cultural or ethnic
backgrounds of the new immigrants for the high crime of the
neighborhoods in which the immigrants lived. You will read
more about this in Chapter 6.
Interestingly, however, Shaw and McKay discovered that as
the new immigrants gained wealth due to their new jobs, and
were able to move further away from the central business
district, the crime rates in these high crime areas did not drop
when immigrants from a different country started to move in.
At the same time, the crime rates of the neighborhoods to
which the older immigrants moved did not increase. Shaw and
McKay concluded that there were factors associated with the
neighborhoods themselves rather than the people who lived in
the neighborhoods that were at least partially responsible for
the areas being crime-prone. Eventually, the study of why some
places become hot-spots for crime as well as the overall spatial
distribution of crime has come to be called, “environmental
criminology” (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1981). We discuss
environmental criminology in more detail in Chapter 7.

‘Hotspots’ are those areas within a city or a neighborhood where the
most crime seems to regularly occur.
Image generated using Midjourney using the prompt: A
photorealistic illustration of a digital map with various inventory
items pinpointed on it, alongside a magnifying glass zooming into a
specific asset. In the photorealistic style with white background, black
ink, using mostly red and blue shades. no text font, stylise 5 –chaos 2
–weird 1
Among the many spatial characteristics that criminologist

have found to be associated with crime are residential mobility
(how often people from home to home) and the lack of home
ownership (Bursik, 1988; Sampson et al., 1997). Unsurprisingly,
these two characteristics are common among lower
socioeconomic status families, who are often members of a

racial or ethnic minority group. For this reason, the link
between race/ethnicity and crime as well as the link between
socioeconomic class and crime are complicated by facts
associated with differences in areas in which different groups
may live (Sampson & Wilson, 1995).
Victim Characteristics
At the beginning of the chapter, we asked you to think of the

word, “criminal” and imagine someone fitting that description.
Now do the same with the word, “victim.” If you are like most
people, the person you envision will look much different from
the criminal you imagined earlier. The person you are thinking
of may fit the typical victim stereotype: weak, inexperienced
and an easy target (Ruback & Thompson, 2001; von Hentig,
1948). This person may be very young, elderly, and female.
Most people assume that offenders and victims are very
distinct groups of people, where the victims have done nothing
wrong. They may have simply been in the wrong place at the
wrong time when the offender happened to be there (Fagan
et al., 1987). Stereotypes, as well as the entertainment industry,
frequently suggest that offenders select their victims in a
random way (Best, 1999). One exception seems to be the
entertainment industry’s depiction of murder victims, where
victims are often portrayed as being selected for a very specific
reason. Television and movie plots often concentrate upon an
elaborate scheme to plan the crime and ensure a high risk
getaway so that the offender(s) is not caught and punished.
In reality, crime victims often share many of the same
characteristics as offenders (Lauritsen et al., 1991), especially for
violent offenses (Block, 1981). Victims of violence tend to be
young and male. In other words, the same risk and protectives
factors for offending also apply to victimisation. Not only are
victim and offender characteristics similar, but at times there

can even be what criminologists call a “victim-offender
overlap.” This term refers to the fact that an offender can often
experience victimisation at different points in their lives (Berg
& Schreck, 2022). Figure 3.3 shows that while 76% of all
individuals 14 years and older who have had contact with the
Queensland police were offenders, over 12% of the contacts
involved individuals who were victims as well as offenders.
Figure 3.3: Offender-Victim Overlap Among Those 14 Years and

Older with Contact with the Queensland Police, 2008-09 to 2019-20
Data Source: Queensland Government Statistician’s Office. (2023). The
Overlap Between Offending and Victimisation in Queensland
Queensland Treasury.
Although 12% of police contacts being both victims and

offenders is modest, this number is dwarfed by higher
estimates of the victim-offender overlap found by
criminologists from other countries in different types of
populations. One United States study, for example, found that
among female prisoners in New York, 75% reported being
victimised in some way by an adult intimate partner prior to
their incarceration, while 77% reported physical or sexual
assault by a nonintimate. In addition, 49% reported being a
robbery victim, 49% reported being threatened with physical
harm or threatened with a weapon, and 28% reported being
attacked with a knife or being shot at. When all forms of

violence were considered together, 94% of the prisoners
reported some type of serious prior victimisation (Browne et al.,
1999).
Regardless of the exact degree to which an overlap exists
between victims and offenders, several studies in Australia, the
UK and the United States have consistently found substantial
victim-offender overlaps in different types of populations, such
as Australian youth who have been reported as missing
(Randone & Thomas, 2002), people with disabilities (Anstis &
Thomas, 2022), homicide victims (Wolfgang, 1958), the general
adult male population (Singer, 1981) and the general adult male
and female populaton of the UK (Gottfredson, 1984).
Several explanations have been offered in these studies in
attempt to identify underlying reasons for why individuals who
are offenders are also likely to be victims. One possibility is
that victimisation risk is largely about exposure to offenders,
which occurs because of an individual’s lifestyle, residence, and
routine activities (Felson, 1998). Because people associate with,
and otherwise primarily contact people similar to themselves,
if those other people are offenders, the individuals are at a
greater risk of victimisation (Hindelang et al., 1978; Ruback &
Thompson, 2001). Put more succinctly, offenders hang out with
other offenders and they subsequently victimise each other.
Offenders are also more likely to use alcohol or illegal drugs,
which lowers their ability to protect themselves and their
belongings (Felson et al., 2007). Offenders are also more likely
to live in socially disorganised places that have high rates of
crime (Ruback & Thompson, 2001; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1994).
A further reason for the overlap is that offenders can be
attractive targets. They may have something of value worth
taking. Drug dealers, for example, have both drugs and cash
and are unlikely to involve the police (Wright & Decker, 1997).
Victims and offenders can sometimes switch roles in the sense
that the distress of victimisation may lead victims to respond
with anger and their own subsequent criminal behavior

(Bernard, 1990). Both offenders and their victims may come
from a similar group of people who encourage retaliation for
perceived wrongs. In other words, both victims and offenders
may adhere to a “subculture of violence” where violence
between individuals escalates during repeated interactions
with others (Corzine et al., 1999; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996). Finally,
when victims value courage, honour and retribution, and when
social status is achieved through the adoption of a tough
demeanor (Anderson, 1994), victims may be more likely to
respond to an offender with force as we see in bar fights, where
it becomes difficult to determine who is the offender and who
is the victim.
CONCLUSION
The characteristics of offenders, and by extension, victims, is

one of the first places that criminologists look to help explain
why individuals commit crime. But as you have already seen,
there are a lot of potential explanations. What is important to
know is that the actual patterns of crime are much different
than many people realise. Beyond that, these patterns of
characteristics will vary by location, offense type and even
century. As we saw in Chapter 2, definitions of crime itself can
vary. When it does, the characteristics that we come to equate
with crime will also change. That is certainly the case when it
comes to comparisons of “street crime” and white collar and
corporate crimes. In the upcoming chapters, we will examine
these different theoretical explanations of crime and
criminality.


here:
justice/?p=172#h5p-5
1. How does the way that we collect data about

crime and individuals who commit crime affect
what we know about the characteristics of
offenders?
2. What is the ‘victim-offender overlap’ and how
big is it? How did you come to that conclusion?
3. Out of all of the characteristics of offenders and
victims, which one seems the most problematic
to you? Why?

REFERENCES
Ackerman, J., & Rossmo, D. K. (2015). How far to travel? A

multilevel analysis of the residence-to-crime distance. Journal
of Quantitative Criminology, 31(2), 237-262. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10940-014-9232-7
Adler, F. (1975). Sisters in crime: The rise of the new female
criminal. McGraw-Hill.
Anderson, E. (1994). The code of the streets. Atlantic Monthly,
273, 80-94.
Anstis, S., & Thomas, S. D. M. (2022). Exploring the victim
offender overlap among people with an intellectual disability.
Journal of Applied Research on Intelletual Disabilities, 35,
789-799.
Baker, J. (2001). The scope for reducing Indigenous
imprisonment rates. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and
Research.
Baumer, E. P. (2002). Neighborhood disadvantage and police
notification by victims of violence. Criminology, 40, 579-616.
Beatton, T., Kidd, M. P., & Machin, S. (2018). Gender crime
convergence over twenty years: evidence from Australia.
European Economic Review, 109, 275-288. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.euroecorev.2018.01.001
Berg, M. T., & Schreck, C. J. (2022). The meaning of the victim-
offender overlap for criminological theory and crime
prevention policy. Annual Review of Criminology, 5, 277-297.
Bernard, T. J. (1990). Angry aggression among the “truly
disadvantaged”. Criminology, 28, 73-96.
Berndt, T. J. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity to
peers and parents.Developmental Psychology, 15, 608-616.
Best, J. (1999). Random violence: How we talk about new
crimes and new victims. University of California Press.
Block, R. (1981). Victim-offender dynamics in violent crime.
The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72(2), 743-761.

Braithwaite, J. (1981). The myth of social class and criminality
reconsidered.American Sociological Review, 46, 36-57.
Braithwaite, J., & Biles, D. (1980). Crime victimisation rates
in Australian cities. Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Sociology, 16(1), 79-84.
Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (Eds.). (1981).
Environmental Criminology. Sage.
Browne, A., Miller, B., & Maguin, E. (1999). Prevalence and
severity of lifetime physical and sexual victimization among
incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry, 22(3-4), 301-322.
Bursik, R. J., Jr. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of
crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology,
26, 519-552.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1978). Chivalry reexamined: Women and
the criminal justice system. In L. H. Bowker (Ed.), Women,
Crime, and the Criminal Justice System (pp. 197-223). D.C.
Heath.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime
rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological
Review, 44, 588-608.
Commission, A. H. R. (2021). The Minimum Age of Criminal
Responsibility.
Corzine, J., Huff-Corzine, L., & Whitt, H. P. (1999). cultural and
subcultural theories of homicide. In M. D. Smith & M. A. Zahn
(Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research (pp. 42-57).
Sage.
Crofts, T. (2023). Act Now: Raise the Minimum Age of Criminal
Responsibility. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 35(1), 118-138.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2022.2139892
Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., & Polanzi, C. W. (1982). The seriousness
of crime revisited: Have attitudes toward white-collar crime
changed? Criminology, 20, 83-102.
Daly, K., & Tonry, M. H. (1997). Gender, race, and sentencing. In
Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 22, pp. 201-252).

Fagan, J., Piper, E. S., & Cheng, Y.-T. (1987). Contributions of
victimization to delinquency in inner cities. Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology, 78, 586-609.
Felson, M. (1998). Crime and Everyday Life (2nd ed.). Pine
Forge Press.
Felson, R. B., Burchfield, K. B., & Teasdale, B. (2007). The
impact of alcohol on different types of violent incidents.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(8), 1057-1068.
Gottfredson, M. R. (1984). Victims of crime: Dimensions of risk.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of
Crime. Stanford University Press.
Green, C. (2014). Toddler taming: The classic guide to your
child’s behavior from 1 to 4. Ebury Publishing.
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group
socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102,
458-489.
Hindelang, M. J. (1979). Sex differences in criminal activity.
Social Problems, 27(2), 143-156.
Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., & Garofalo, J. (1978).
Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory
of personal victimization. Ballinger.
Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. R. (1983). Age and the
explanation of crime. American Journal of Sociology, 89,
552-584.
Jeffries, S., & Newbold, G. (2016). Analysing trends in the
imprisonment of women in Australia and New Zealand.
Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 23(2), 184-206.
Krohn, M. D., Curry, J. P., & Nelson-Kilger, S. (1983). Is chivalry
dead? Criminology, 21, 417-437.
LaPrairie, C. (1997). Reconstructing theory: Explaining
Aboriginal over representation in the criminal justice system in
Canada. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology,
30(1), 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/000486589703000104
Lauritsen, J. L., Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1991). The link

between offending and victimization among adolescents.
Criminology, 29(2), 265-292.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of
gratification in children. Science, 244, 933-938.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-
persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy.
Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex
differences in antisocial behavior. Cambridge University Press.
Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of Honor: The
Psychology of Violence in the South. Westview Press.
Paternoster, R., & Bachman, R. (2001). Explaining Criminals
and Crime. Roxbury.
Quee, M., James, T., Maher, C., & Andriolo, I. (2023). Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare: The health of people in
Australia’s prisons 2022.
Randone, J., & Thomas, S. D. M. (2002). The victim-offender
overlaps among Australian youth missing persons. Policing,
16(4), 707-718.
Reiman, J. H. (1998). The rich get richer and the poor get
prison: Ideology, class and criminal justice. In (5th ed., pp.
[various selections]). Allyn and Bacon.
Reiman, J. H. (2001). Is street crime more harmful than white-
collar crime? – [No]. In Finsterbusch (Ed.), Taking sides (pp.
260-276). McGraw-Hill.
Rossi, P. H., Waite, E., Bose, C. E., & Berk, R. E. (1974). The
seriousness of crime: Normative structure and individual
differences. American Sociological Review, 39, 224-237.
Rossmo, D. K., Lu, Y., & Fang, T. (2012). Spatial-temporal crime
paths. In M. A. Andresen & J. B. Kinney (Eds.), Patterns,
prevention, and geometry of crime (pp. 16-42). Routledge.
Ruback, R. B., & Thompson, M. P. (2001). Social and
psychological consequences of violent victimization. Sage
Publications.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making:

Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University
Press.
Sampson, R. J., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1994). Violent victimization
and offending: Individual, situational, and community-level risk
factors. In A. J. Reiss, Jr. & J. A. Roth (Eds.), Understanding and
preventing violence: Social influences (Vol. 3, pp. 1-114). National
Academy Press.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. J. (1997).
Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of
collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924.
Sampson, R. J., & Wilson, W. J. (1995). Toward a theory of race,
crime, and urban inequality. In J. Hagan & R. D. Peterson (Eds.),
Crime and inequality (pp. 37-54). Stanford University Press.
Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and
urban areas: A study of rates of delinquents in relation to
differential characteristics of local communities in American
cities. The University of Chicago press.
Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots
of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of
place. Criminology, 27, 27-55.
Simon, R. J. (1975). Women and Crime. Lexington Books.
Singer, S. (1981). Homogeneous victim-offender populations:
A review and some implications. Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 72(2), 779-788.
Steffensmeier, D. J., & Allan, E. A. (1996). Gender and crime:
Toward a gendered theory of female offending. Annual Review
of Sociology, 22, 459-487.
Steffensmeier, D. J., Kramer, J., & Streifel, C. (1993). Gender and
imprisonment decisions. Criminology, 31, 411-446.
Steffensmeier, D. J., Schwartz, J., Slepicka, J., & Zhong, H.
(2023). Twenty-first century trends in girls’ violence and gender
gap: Triangulated findings from official and unofficial
longitudinal sources. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
38(17-18), 9818-9844. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231169733
Steffensmeier, D. J., Schwartz, J., Zhong, S., & Ackerman, J.

(2005). An assessment of recent trends in girls’ violence using
diverse longitudinal sources: Is the gender gap closing?
Criminology, 43, 355-405. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.0011-1348.2005.00011.x
Steffensmeier, D. J., Ulmer, J. T., & Kramer, J. (1998). The
interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The
punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology,
36, 763-793.
Steffensmeier, D. J., Zhong, H., Ackerman, J., Schwartz, J., &
Agha, S. (2006). Gender gap trends for violent crimes,
1980-2003: A UCR – NCVS comparison. Feminist Criminology, 1,
72-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085105283953
Sutherland, E. H. (1949). White collar crime. Dryden.
Tjaden, P., & Tjaden, C. D. (1981). Differential treatment of the
female felon: Myth or reality? In M. Q. Warren (Ed.), Comparing
female and male offenders (pp. 73-88). Sage.
Visher, C. A. (1983). Gender, police arrest decisions, and
notions of chivalry. Criminology, 21, 5-28.
von Hentig, H. (1948). The criminal and his victim. Yale
University Press.
Warr, M. (1993). Age, peers, and delinquency. Criminology, 31,
17-40.
Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime. Cambridge University
Press.
Weatherburn, D. (2001). What causes crime? (Contemporary
Issues in Crime and Justice, Issue 54). NSW Bureau of Crime
Statistics and Research.
Winling, L. C., & Michney, T. M. (2021). The roots of redlining:
Academic, governmental, and professional networks in the
making of the new deal lending
regime. Journal of American History, 108(1),
42-69. https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/jaab066
Wolfgang, M. E. (1958). Patterns in Criminal Homicide.
Patterson Smith.
Wolfgang, M. E., Thornberry, T. P., & Figlio, R. M. (1987). From

boy to man, from delinquency to crime. University of Chicago
Press.
Wright, R. T., & Decker, S. H. (1997). Armed robbers in action:
Stickups and street culture. Northeastern University Press.

4. Classical Theories of
Criminology:
Deterrence
LUCY FORRESTER AND CARLEY RUIZ
Learning Objectives
• Introduce the reader to theories that underpin

the deterrence framework.
• Provide an understanding of the key principles
of deterrence theory.
• Explore the deterrence theory framework in the
criminal justice system context.
Deterrence | 97
Before You Begin
• How do you act when no one is looking?

• Have you ever thought about doing something
you’re not supposed to? Does the risk of getting
caught change your decision about engaging in
that behaviour?
• Who are you most worried about knowing
you’ve done something wrong? Do you worry
about the government or your friends/family/
loved ones?
INTRODUCTION
Have you ever wondered why sentencing scenes in courtroom

dramas are so intense? They highlight the legal system’s focus
on deterrence, where judges weigh the crime’s impact on
society and the message it sends. Phrases like “Let this be
a lesson” emphasise the importance of deterring future
offending. But why is there also an emphasis on the public
nature of sentencing and tailoring punishment to send
broader societal messages? Why does the severity of the
punishment often seem tailored not just to the crime, but to
the broader social message about how to act? This chapter
98 | Deterrence
explores classical deterrence theory, shedding light on these
questions.
While much of criminology focuses on the psychological or
sociological underpinnings of criminal behaviour, classical
deterrence theory offers a different perspective by looking at
how the legal and penal systems can influence potential
offenders’ decision-making processes. Through understanding
the principles of deterrence, we uncover fundamental
strategies for preventing crime through punishment.
In this chapter, we explore the evolution of classical
deterrence theory during the Enlightenment era, focusing on
the contributions of thinkers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy
Bentham. The objective of this chapter is to provide you with
an overview of classical deterrence theory. We will explore the
key concepts underpinning the theory, including the rational
choice perspective, general and specific deterrence, and
principles of punishment and proportionality. Additionally, we
will examine the role these principles play in influencing
penology and in shaping criminal justice policies. Finally, we
will critique the theory’s notable shortcomings and consider
developments and directions of the theory.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF CLASSICAL

DETERRENCE THEORY
The origins of classical deterrence theory can be traced back

to the 18th century, a period marked by an intellectual and
cultural revolution known as the Age of Enlightenment. This
era, characterised by a critique of then-dominant forms of
authority and religious systems, set the stage for
transformative shifts in criminological and philosophical
thought. It advocated the ideals of individual free will and
Deterrence | 99
rational decision-making, challenging earlier beliefs that
viewed human behaviour as predestined.
At the forefront of this revolution were influential figures like
1 2
Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham , whose contributions
laid the groundwork for classical deterrence theory. Beccaria’s
essay, On Crimes and Punishments (1764), pioneered a shift
in the way of thinking about human behaviour and justice.
It advocated for punishment to be rational, systematic and
grounded in the principles of deterrence, proportionality and
the protection of individual rights. This was different from
prevailing notions of criminal justice responses that were
characterised by arbitrary forms of punishment. Jeremy
Bentham’s (1789) writings on utilitarianism and penal reform
further advanced these ideas by emphasising the role of
legislation in creating a rational social order where individuals,
acting in rational self-interest, would be dissuaded from
engaging in criminal behaviour due to the threat of
punishment.
1. Want to know more about Cesare Beccaria? Check out this

video about him.
2. Jeremy Bentham is another interesting historical figure. Learn
more about him here.
100 | Deterrence
The Marchese Cesare Beccari. This figure is in the
public domain and available from Wikimedia.
The intellectual legacy of figures like Beccaria and Bentham,

alongside their contemporaries from the Enlightenment era,
significantly shaped the development of modern criminal
justice systems worldwide Their advocacy for legal and penal
reforms emphasised crime prevention through the deterrent
effect, rather than relying solely on punitive penalties, thereby
reshaping approaches to crime and punishment in the
centuries that followed.
Deterrence | 101
Deterrence continued to dominate criminal justice
philosophy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and remains
a cornerstone of modern approaches to law enforcement and
punishment today.
DESCRIPTION OF THEORY
The following section will explore the key principles of classical

deterrence theory, clarifying its key concepts and the pivotal
role these ideas play within the framework of criminal justice.
Rational Choice Theory
Grounded in Bentham’s (1789) rational choice perspective,

classical deterrence theory claims that people are rational
beings who seek to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. This
perspective offers insight into human behaviour within the
context of classical deterrence. It suggests that potential
offenders will calculate the benefits and consequences of an
offence before deciding to engage in it (Bentham, 1789).
Consider, for instance, an individual who is thinking about
committing fraud online. They might consider the immediate
financial gain and the anonymity the internet provides as
benefits of offending. However, they must also consider the
risks involved, such as the likelihood of being traced by
cybercrime enforcement units, facing legal penalties and
damage to their professional or personal reputation.
A rational choice perspective maintains that crime occurs
when the perceived benefits of an offence outweigh its
perceived consequences (Bentham, 1789). Building on this,
classical deterrence theory suggests that crime prevention
can be achieved by increasing the threat of punishment,
102 | Deterrence
effectively influencing the decision-making process of
potential offenders.
Do Online Illicit Drug Markets Exchanges Afford

Rationality?
Andrew Childs, Ross Coomber, and Melissa Bull
Published in Contemporary Drug Problems (2020), Volume

47, Issue 4, pages 302-319.
Rational choice theory is a popular theoretical

framework used to explain the nature of exchanges in
illicit drug markets, however gaps have been identified
in the theory, particularly within online drug markets.
The article critiques the use of rational choice
perspectives to explain online drug exchanges as there
are differences in the nature of offending to offline
street-level drug markets. The article provides an in-
depth critical analysis of rational choice theoretical
perspectives, from exploring the origins of 17th and
18th century theorists to how it is relevant in today’s
society, especially how it applies to the online illicit
drug market.
Due to the varying nature of the online supply and

access to illicit drugs, the article aims to reassess
theoretical assumptions that are prevalent in research
about offline illicit drug exchanges. The article
describes how online illicit drug markets operate in
various forms, including through social media and
encrypted messaging applications. These methods
differ greatly to offline illicit drug market exchanges.
Deterrence | 103
The article emphasises the need to address the lack of
theoretical attention in research on the emerging trend
of online illicit drug markets. The authors make
comparisons to the different structures of online and
offline illicit drug market exchanges to highlight the
importance of the need to utilise theoretical
frameworks to better understand the variation
between the markets.
The conclusion the article comes to is that online

platforms may afford greater elements of rationality
than offline forms of drug exchange. The article
suggests that as illicit drug markets continue to
diversify through the use of online technology, it is
important to monitor and analyse the changing nature
of drug exchanges.
A summary by Melissa Osborn
Certainty, Celerity, and Severity of

Punishment
Classical deterrence theory outlines three critical factors that

influence the decision-making processes of potential
offenders: certainty, celerity, and severity of punishment
(Beccaria, 1764; Bentham, 1789).
Certainty of Punishment
Certainty of punishment refers to the likelihood of being

caught and punished for a crime. When individuals believe
104 | Deterrence
there is a high chance of being caught, they are less inclined
to partake in criminal activities. Certainty of punishment aims
to deter individuals from offending by increasing the perceived
likelihood of apprehension and prosecution (Bentham 1789).
To demonstrate this concept, imagine a scenario of a small
town where graffiti has become a widespread issue, tarnishing
public buildings and private properties. In response to
community concerns, police boost patrols in hot spots and
install visible surveillance cameras. This strategy aims to deter
potential vandals by raising the likelihood of punishment. As
the community becomes more vigilant and the police more
present, the perception that graffiti will lead to immediate
consequences grows stronger among would-be offenders.
Celerity (Swiftness) of Punishment
Celerity of punishment refers to the speed at which offenders

are apprehended and penalised following an offence (Beccaria,
1764). The principle emphasises the importance of swift legal
responses to crime. Delays in apprehension and punishment
can significantly weaken the deterrent effect of punishment,
making swiftly punishment crucial in preventing further
offending (Blumstein et al.,1978; Nagin & Pogarsky, 2001).
To illustrate this concept, think about the handling of traffic
infractions in Australia. Once a speeding is detected offenders
are promptly notified of their fines, usually within weeks of
the violation. This rapid response, from detection to penalty,
enhances the deterrent effect of punishment, aiming to
decrease instances of speeding and thereby enhance overall
road safety.
Deterrence | 105
Severity of Punishment
Severity of punishment refers to the degree of consequence

for offending. It serves as a deterrent by heightening the
perceived risks associated with criminal behaviour (Gibbs, 1975).
This strategy seeks to increase the severity of punishment to
a level where the costs of committing a crime outweigh any
potential benefits (Andenaes, 1974). In theory, the more severe
the punishment for a crime, the stronger its deterrent effect on
prospective offenders (Beccaria, 1764; Bentham, 1789).
Influencing Driver Offending Behaviour: Using an

Integrated Deterrence-Based Model
Eslam Hassan, Lyndel Bates, and Justin Ready
Published in Crime and Delinquency (2022). Online First.
Most road incidences involve human error and a key

strategy to road policing has been targeted at
changing driving behaviour. Deterrence theory has
been the basis of many road policing strategies such as
random breath tests (RBT) and speed and red-light
cameras. Deterrence is to discourage a behaviour by
threatening a sanction. In the context of road policing,
deterrence is utilised as a strategy by increasing the
perceived risk of punishment and consequences to
reduce offending driving behaviour. This study aims to
build upon existing literature and proposes an
integrated deterrence-based model that consists of the
classical deterrence theory, reconceptualised
deterrence model and informal deterrence
106 | Deterrence
mechanisms. To investigate the relationship between
these factors and offending driving behaviour, the
researchers conducted an online survey and relied on
self-reported data from the participants.
The results suggest that social sanctions such as

feelings of shame, guilt and embarrassment and the
threat of material loss were predictive of reduced
offending behaviour. Furthermore, individuals who
committed an offence and did not receive punishment,
had lower levels of perceived certainty of punishment
which in turn increases offending driving behaviour.
Regarding the sociodemographic data, this study
found that younger drivers reported more driving
offending behaviour compared to middle-aged and
older drivers. Moreover, individuals who drove more
frequently were also associated with driving offending
behaviour.
When applying these results to inform road policing,

they suggest that random highly visible enforcement
operations may increase levels of perceived certainty of
detection and punishment which may reduce
offending driving behaviour. However, while this
deterrent method is effective, it is costly to maintain.
Therefore, a cost-effective alternative would be non-
legal countermeasures that utilise social sanctions to
influence driving behaviours to reduce potential
offending. Another form of deterrent threat was
through the use of well-run media campaigns as they
increase individuals’ perceived certainty of
punishment, as well as raise awareness regarding the
types of possible consequences that could be
Deterrence | 107
administered when drivers are caught breaking road
rules.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that some of the

results of this study were contradictory to the current
literature. This may be due to the limitations of the
study; however, it also indicates that more research
surrounding this topic is required to gain a more
concrete understanding of deterrence theory and how
it can inform policing strategies to reduce offending
driving behaviour.
A summary by Natasha Smith
Specific Deterrence versus General

Deterrence
Classical deterrence theory distinguishes two main

mechanisms through which punishment can deter crime:
specific deterrence and general deterrence.
Specific deterrence is the concept of deterrence through
first-hand punishment. It is achieved when the punishment
of an individual for a crime dissuades them from offending in
the future (Andenaes, 1968, 1974). General deterrence is the
concept that witnessing the punishment of an individual or
group second-hand can discourage a community or society
from engaging in similar criminal acts (Andenaes, 1968; Nagin,
1978). General deterrence is achieved through publicly visible
and consistent punishment, which serves to deter the broader
community from offending by warning them of the
consequences of unlawful behaviour (Nagin, 1978; Paternoster
& Piquero, 1995). Principles of general and specific deterrence
108 | Deterrence
have long been the underlying foundation of criminal justice
policies and practices.
To demonstrate this concept, consider a scenario where a
community has been confronted with an increase in alcohol-
fuelled violence in nightlife/entertainment precincts, sparking
widespread concern among residents. To address this, new
legislation was introduced that mandates more severe
consequences for violent offences. These mandates include
restrictions on the sale of alcohol and the introduction of ID
scanners. Using linked data, scanners can detect problematic
patrons on court, police, or venue-imposed banning orders and
prevent them from entering a venue or an entertainment
precinct. In this context, the severity of punishment not only
lies in the denial of entry to a venue but also in the legal
consequences for breaching a court order (e.g., fines or
imprisonment) (Miller et al., 2023).
Principle of proportionality
Embedded within classical deterrence is the principle of

3
proportionality , which asserts that the punishment must
correspond to the gravity of the offence (Beccaria, 1764). It aims
to ensure that penalties are neither excessively harsh nor too
lenient (Zimring & Hawkins, 1973), ensuring fairness and
efficacy in criminal justice policies (von Hirsch, 1993). This not
only preserves public trust in the legal system but also
safeguards the fundamental morals and values of society
(Andenaes, 1974; Tonry, 2011).
Classical deterrence theory suggests that the more certain,
immediate, and severe the punishment, the stronger the
3. For a more in-depth discussion about proportionality, check

out this video.
Deterrence | 109
deterrent effect (Beccaria, 1764). This emphasises the
importance of striking a delicate balance in the criminal justice
system, ensuring deterrence while upholding principles of
fairness and proportionality.
Classical deterrence theory understands offending
behaviour through a rational framework of offending, where
the decisions to offend involve a calculation of risks and
rewards. Punishment serves to deter the general community
and repeat offenders. In principle, deterrence is best achieved
when responses to crime are certain, swift, and severe yet
proportionate responses to crime.
THEORY APPLICATION
Classical deterrence theory lays the foundation for our law,

regulations, and approaches within the criminal justice system.
It serves not only as a penological principle but also as a
strategic guide for policy development, interventions, and
preventive measures aimed at influencing individuals’
decision-making processes before they commit an act.
In Australia, deterrence is explicitly recognised as a guiding
sentencing guideline. At the federal level, Section 16A(1) Crimes
Act 1914 (Cth) requires the Australian courts to consider factors
like the nature and seriousness of the offence when
determining a sentence. Similarly, in Victoria, Section 5(1) of
the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) states that courts must consider
the maximum penalty and the standard sentence for offences,
ensuring alignment with the seriousness of the crime’s gravity.
These sentencing guidelines exemplify the principle of
proportionality by mandating that courts weigh the gravity of
the offence against the severity of the punishment, ensuring
that the sentence accurately reflects the seriousness of the
crime committed.
Judges apply legislative guidelines to ensure that sentences
110 | Deterrence
fulfil both punitive and deterrent objectives, aligning with
societal values and expectations of justice and fairness (Brown
& Pratt, 2000). In their rulings, judges often articulate the
deterrent function of a sentence, highlighting the importance
of deterring not only the individual offender but also sending
a clear message to the community about the consequences
of criminal behaviour (Roberts & Stalans, 1997). This judicial
emphasis reflects the dual objectives of specific deterrence,
aimed at preventing reoffending by the individual, and general
deterrence, intended to discourage others in society from
committing similar criminal acts (Brown & Pratt, 2000).
Principles of Punishment in Australian

Criminal Justice Policies and Strategies
The principles of certainty, severity, and celerity have been

foundational to crafting criminal justice policies. These
principles inform the design of legislative measures, shape
judicial sentencing practices, and direct law enforcement
strategies (Sarre & Prenzler, 2011).
Applications of Certainty of Punishment
The principle of celerity of punishment is operationalised

through robust law enforcement and legal processes designed
to ensure that offences are detected and prosecuted. Examples
of initiatives that increase the certainty of punishment include
increasing police presence (Sherman & Weisburd, 1995), the use
of technology in law enforcement like CCTV and automatic
license plate recognition systems (Ratcliffe et al., 2009), hot
spot policing (Braga, 2005), randomised drug testing (Watling
et al., 2010), direct communication by police with known
Deterrence | 111
potential offenders (Kennedy, 1997), and community policing
(Skogan, 2006). These initiatives ensure that offences are
detected and prosecuted and thereby increase the perceived
risk of detection and punishment among potential criminals.
Applications of Severity of Punishment
The principle of severity of punishment is operationalised

through stringent sentencing guidelines and judicial practices,
ensuring that penalties are proportionate and significant
enough to act as a deterrent. Legislative measures, such as
minimum sentencing and mandatory sentencing laws, are
examples of legislative measures that aim to increase the
severity of punishment by limiting judicial discretion in
sentencing for certain crimes. Public opinion and safety are
driving factors in the implementation of severe mandatory
sentencing policies, which they support in concept, but not in
practice when it comes to cases sentenced under mandatory
regimes (Roberts et al., 2003). Contrary to the principle of
severity, deterrence research does not generally find support
for the threat of mandatory sentencing practices (see Day et
al., 2021) and the threat of longer sentences for assault rates
(Menéndez & Weatherburn, 2016).
Applications of Celerity of Punishment
Celerity, or the swiftness with which punishment is applied,

is another critical component of deterrence. The Australian
criminal justice system strives to minimise delays in the
adjudication and sentencing processes, recognising that the
prompt application of punishment can reinforce its deterrent
effect.
112 | Deterrence
Criminal justice strategies for increasing celerity of
punishment focus on improving the time it takes to detect,
apprehend, and punish an offender. Initiatives to reduce the
time in which offenders are processed through the criminal
justice system include expediting cases for high-risk offenders
(Turner & Petersilia, 1992), specialised courts (e.g., drug, mental
health and family violence courts; Redlich & Summers, 2012),
and the use of technology to improve case processing (Redlich
& Summers, 2012). By reducing the time between the
commission of a crime and the imposition of a penalty, these
measures aim to strengthen the impact of deterrence on both
the individual offender and the broader community.
The effectiveness of severe penalties in deterring crime has
been increasingly questioned, with studies indicating that the
certainty of punishment, rather than its severity, is more
influential in preventing crime (Durlauf & Nagin, 2010; Nagin &
Pogarsky, 2001). This highlights the need for a re-evaluation of
criminal justice policies to prioritise evidence-based strategies
that address the root causes of crime without resorting to
excessive punishment.
The effects of banning orders and ID Scanners on Violent

Crime and Disorder: An analysis of Micro-locations in
Surfers Paradise
An Honours Thesis by Adam Turner
Prior to this research examining a recent change in

the legislation in Queensland there was little research
looking at the use of the ID scanning technology and
Deterrence | 113
the effects it had specifically in Safe Night Precincts
(SNP) across the state. Banning orders were another
intervention introduced with the changes in legislation
giving venue owners, police, and courts the power to
ban problematic patrons from a venue or prescribed
area for three or more months.
Surfers Paradise was identified as the research site

due to the suburb containing a SNP as well as being a
well-known tourist destination that attracts people of
all ages and nationalities. SNPs are known to be hot
spots of violence in public places due to the higher
concentration of individuals under the influence of
alcohol and illicit substances which increases the
likelihood of associated harms. The introduction of the
ID scanners in all licensed venues open after 10pm has
the aim of restricting problematic patrons from
entering a specific venue or all venues within a given
SNP.
The project utilised a geospatial analytic method to

observe where crimes were taking place and how
offending patterns changed over time. To more
accurately identify where crimes were occurring street
segments were used. A street segment is a section of
road between two intersections such as traffic lights,
roundabouts, or street intersections. Each crime
recorded by the Queensland Police was attached to the
nearest street segment and then an aggregated by
month over the 36-month study period. In total there
are 626 street segments in Surfers Paradise of which
approximately 70% (n=433) were included in the
analysis after removing segments that were too short
114 | Deterrence
for meaningful analyses to be conducted. Of the street
segments roughly 20% (n=84) contained at least one
alcohol selling venue. We then observed the changes
of crime patterns across street segments with and
without alcohol selling venues to see if there were any
crime reduction effects.
Interestingly only street segments that had a

licensed venue saw a reduction of interpersonal
violence in the first 12 months after banning orders
were introduced. It wasn’t until after this 12-month
period that a more widespread reduction of
interpersonal violence was observed due to the
introduction of ID scanning technology which allowed
venue staff to better identify problematic patrons and
be able to provide a safer environment for others in the
area.
Unlike interpersonal violence there was no change in

offending patterns for public disorder in the 12 months
across all street segments. A small reduction in public
order offending was seen across all street segments
after the introduction of ID scanners. This is likely due
to banning orders focusing largely on creating safer
environments within a venue and not targeting public
places.
The findings of this research provided theoretical and

practical implications that can help further reduce
crime in SNPs. Firstly, the research demonstrated that
without the presence of an enforcement mechanism
such as ID scanners it is hard to detect people who
have been problematic in the past and are unable to
make informed decisions about whether they should
be granted entry into a licensed venue. This can be
Deterrence | 115
done with the ID scanners as they are all connected to
a central database of all problematic patrons across the
state and is not limited to staff’s personal knowledge of
frequent troublemakers. Theoretically, the research has
helped to demonstrate the diffusion of crime control
benefits as the more time passes after the introduction
of the intervention the benefits are seen in a wider
area. This also has a flow on effect to deterrence
literature to show that while there are penalties in
place for certain crimes, individuals will not be suitably
deterred until there is a mechanism in place to enforce
the punishment.
These changes in legislation came after a lot of public

attention was brought to interpersonal violence in and
around night clubs after more ‘coward punches’ were
resulting in deaths. The findings of this research can
continue creating safer environments for people to
enjoy a night out without a high risk of violence in the
area. It also highlights the need for processes to be in
place to enforce penalties in the surrounding area and
not rely solely on the individual to follow any
restrictions placed on them.
A Deterrence-Based Strategy to Reduce

Driving Offences
This section will highlight deterrence research relating to each

principle and policing strategies and enforcement for driving
under the influence (‘DUI’) with a focus on drink driving.
Australia’s approach to road safety enforcement is heavily
influenced by key principles of deterrence theory, such as
116 | Deterrence
severe fines and a disqualified licence, to reduce benefits of
engaging in the act.
Speed Camera. Speed Camera by John K. Thorne is in the public

domain.
The deterrence framework has been utilised by road policing

scholars to determine if there is an impact on reducing illegal
offending behaviour or perceptions of behaviour. Findings
have been mixed but examined in the following contexts: drink
driving (Freeman & Watson, 2006); drink and/or drug driving
(Armstrong et al., 2018; Truelove et al., 2023); speeding (Truelove
et al., 2017). Growing interest in deterrence and mobile phone
use research includes phone use (Ehsani et al., 2014; McCartt
et al., 2010, including social media application Snapchat while
driving [Truelove et al., 2019a; Truelove, Oviedo-Trespalacios et
al., 2021]), drivers’ uncertainty and perceptions on phone use
(Kaviani et al., 2021; Truelove, Freeman et al., 2021), and use of
Deterrence | 117
mobile phones and the perception of risk information (Kaviani
et al., 2022).
Research has also examined the effectiveness of policing
enforcement tools and practices underpinned by deterrence
theory to deter driving offences. These Australian studies
assess the effectiveness of various road safety strategies that
aim to detect and deter offending, including random breath
tests (Homel, 1988), random drug testing (Watling et al., 2010),
speed and red light cameras (Bates et al., 2020; Watson et al.,
2015), legal and non-legal measures (Hassan et al., 2022), and
mobile phone use cameras (Kaviani, et al., 2020a), and police
patrol (Ogden et al., 2022). However, classical deterrence has
not always been supported with scholars finding support for
informal deterrence measures, such as internal loss (shame
and guilt) or material loss to decrease offending (Hassan et al.,
2022; see also Allen et al., 2017).
Certainty of Punishment
The objectives of certainty are to deter drink driving through

the apprehension of the individual using police strategies,
intervention, and campaigns. A random breath test (‘RBT’ or
blood test; Queensland Police Service, 2024) is a key policing
tool that increases certainty of punishment tool for drink
driving by increasing the public’s perceptions of getting
caught through various testing measures (Homel, 1988). RBTs
are carried out during police duties (i.e., being stopped
roadside), through coordinated roadside RBT) operations/blitz
(i.e., visible mass testing roadblocks), and have expanded with
mobile testing units (‘booze buses’; increase visibility and
testing abilities) with coordinated intelligence efforts based on
crash and offender hot spots (Queensland Police Service, cited
in Davey & Freeman, 2011). All these measures provide police
with the ability to test for drugs (random drug test; RDT;
118 | Deterrence
Queensland Government, 2021). Research is mixed on certainty
of punishment and perceptions in predicting offending or
future offending (see e.g., mixed: Owens & Boorman, 2011; high
perceptual certainty: Freeman et al, 2016; Freeman et al., 2020),
including young drivers (see e.g., lower perceptual certainty:
Mills & Freeman, 2023). However, certainty of apprehension can
be effective in reducing recidivism (Freeman & Watson, 2006)
and reducing fatal crashes Homel (1994) speculates,
particularly on holidays and Saturdays, after examining crash
data following the introduction of RBTs.
Celerity of Punishment
In line with the principle of celerity, the impacts of punishment

for drink driving are most effective when administered soon
after the act (Homel, 1988). Drivers are charged and will receive
an immediate licence suspension, which can vary in length of
time depending on their range of drink driving offence (i.e.,
BAC range, failing to produce blood/breath sample, or
dangerous DUI; Queensland Government, 2023a). Punishment
is dependent on magistrates’ decision in court and therefore
may be a lengthy process. This may have an impact on the
deterrence on drink driving in the interim period subject to the
charges. Swiftness is the least examined principle with findings
suggesting that time is pivotal to deterrence in driving
offenders (Freeman et al., 2016 Freeman et al., 2020; Yu &
Wilford, 1995). Re-offending was more-likely if penalties were
not administered within 6-months (Yu & Wilford, 1995), while
drug driving offenders do not perceive sanctions to be swift
but severe and certain (similar punishment procedure for drug
driving; Davey et al., 2008).
Deterrence | 119
Severity of Punishment
The legal consequences for DUI are based on the level of

substance present. In Queensland, penalties include fines,
license suspension and/or disqualification, impounding car (in
certain circumstances or BAC), or imprisonment (Queensland
Government, 2023a). The severity of penalties imposed for DUI
offences depends on the severity of intoxication of an offender
(i.e., BAC range), prior driving history, and whether a first or
repeat offender. Deterrence measures to reduce recidivism
include education courses following disqualification and
alcohol ignition interlock devices, with mid-range offenders
now eligible under Queensland’s reforms (Bailey, 2021).
Australia’s punishments align with the principle of
proportionality as they escalate in severity relative to the level of
intoxication, with incarceration being a measure of last resort.
In contrast, internationally the most severe punishment of
imprisonment, 2-day mandatory jail for first-time drunk drivers,
had no significant effect on reoffending (Martin et al., 1993).
Overall, the effects of severe punishment for DUI offences
have varied. Research into penalty increases to reduce
reoffending has yielded mixed findings (see Weatherburn &
Moffatt, 2011; Watson et al., 2015). Repeat offenders who
perceive sanctions to be severe can be deterred from
continuing behaviour (Freeman et al., 2006). Interlock devices
are also effective while active in reducing drink driving
(Rahman, (2022). Underpinned by severity and certainty for
high-risk drink driving offences, an interlock breath test device
will not allow a driver to start the car if alcohol is detected
and may increase their probationary period (Queensland
Government, 2023b).
Non-legal measures of deterrence reinforce the law through
advertisements and campaigns highlighting the harms, risks,
and consequences aimed at the severity, certainty of
punishment and informal sanctions. Road safety messaging
120 | Deterrence
can be educational, emotive, fear-based, and coping appraisal
(Cismaru et al., 2009; Homel, 1988; Lewis et al., 2007; Phillips
et al., 2011). Similarly, campaigns often draw on severity and
informal sanctions, such as shame, physical pain, and material
loss. Campaigns targeting driver’s self-efficacy can be more
effective than threat messages (severity and vulnerability; see
review by Cismaru et al., 2009).
To reap the expected outcomes of classical deterrence,
ensuring awareness of the likelihood of being caught is high,
punishment is swift and severe is pivotal. However, perceptions
of punishment may not align with the principles, reducing the
deterrent effect.
THEORY CRITICISMS
Despite its foundational status in criminology, classical

deterrence theory has faced much criticism. This next section
will discuss several key criticisms of classical deterrence theory.
Classical deterrence theory has faced criticism for its overly
simplistic approach to understanding criminal behaviour. Its
view of offenders as rational actors who make calculated
decisions to offend fails to consider a broad range of influences
on human behaviour. Human behaviour is complex and is
influenced by a myriad of factors, including social,
psychological, biological, and environmental factors (Felson &
Messner, 1996; Wikström and Treiber, 2007). By overlooking
these complexities, classical deterrence theory provides a
limited understanding of why individuals engage in criminal
activities.
Another critique arises due to inconsistent empirical support
for the effectiveness of deterrence-based strategies across the
deterrence literature. Overall, the perceived certainty of being
caught and punished has been found to play a more important
role in deterrence, the impact of severity and celerity is less
Deterrence | 121
clear and varies across different contexts (Chaflin & McCrary,
2017; Donohue, 2009; Nagin, 2013; Pratt et al., 2006; Nagin &
Pogarsky, 2001). These findings highlight the need for criminal
justice policies to prioritise increasing the likelihood of
punishment over imposing harsher penalties.
Critics argue that classical deterrence framework is overly
dependent on formal sanctions, neglecting other potential
mechanisms of social control. Similarly, deterrence studies
have been criticised for their reliance on legal sanctions to
evaluate deterrent effects (Simpson et al., 2014). This narrow
focus overlooks the broader spectrum of non-legal sanctions
that may influence deterrence outcomes, indicating a need for
more comprehensive investigations into diverse forms of social
control within deterrence frameworks.
Finally, there are concerns about how deterrence theory is
applied in criminal justice systems, especially regarding
policies that increase the severity of punishment. This focus
has prompted some countries to adopt “tough on crime”
strategies, which entail imposing excessively harsh penalties
for certain offences. This trend is evident in the “three-strikes”
laws in Western Australia and mandatory minimum
sentencing in the Northern Territory, which remove judicial
discretion by requiring the enforcement of severe penalties for
4
certain repeat offences . These policies raise significant ethical
concerns regarding their impact on marginalised communities
and the principles of fairness and justice within society (von
Hirsch & Ashworth, 2005). Not only have these policies failed
to deter crime effectively (Nagin, 2013), but they have also
contributed to the issue of mass incarceration (Australian Law
Reform Commission, 2018; Tonry, 2014).
The criticisms against deterrence theory outlined in this
4. For more information about how the Serious Violent Offences

Scheme worked in Queensland, check out this video.
122 | Deterrence
section raise questions about its credibility as a key sentencing
goal and framework underpinning criminal justice system
policies (Frase, 1997).
FUTURE OF THE THEORY
Adapting and Refining Principles through

Integrated Multidisciplinary Perspectives
In recent decades there has been increased scholarly effort

to further reconceptualise the traditional deterrence doctrine
to include new and relevant concepts. These adaptations
integrate insights from various criminological perspectives,
such as social learning theory, self-control theory, and
economic theories (Stafford & Warr, 1993).
Social Learning Theory and Vicarious

Deterrence
By drawing upon principles found in social learning theory,

Stafford and Warr (1993) adapted the deterrence model to
include vicarious deterrence alongside specific and general
deterrence. Vicarious deterrence suggests that individuals can
be deterred from committing crimes not only by their own
experiences with punishment but also by observing the
consequences faced by others for similar actions (Stafford &
Warr, 1993). This challenges traditional views by highlighting
the significance of learning from others’ outcomes in deciding
whether to commit a crime. For more about social learning
theory, check out Chapter 10.
Deterrence | 123
Social Control Theory and Informal
Sanctions
Another notable development of deterrence theory draws

upon insights from social control theory to include informal
sanctions as an additional cost considered in the decision-
making process of potential offenders (Hirchi, 1969; Paternoster
& Simpson, 1996). Informal sanctions involve the social and
psychological consequences of not adhering to societal norms,
such as shame, community disapproval (Sampson et al., 1997),
or reputational damage (Coleman, 1988). This adaption
expands the deterrence framework to encompass a broader
range of deterrent factors beyond formal legal consequences.
Scholars, such as Braithwaite (1985), have also explored the
concept of reintegrative shaming (see Chapter 13) as a form
of deterrence, emphasising the role of social disapproval and
restoration of social bonds (see Chapter 10) in preventing
recidivism and promoting compliance with legal norms.
To demonstrate real-world applications, reflect on how road
safety campaigns utilise informal sanctions to discourage
dangerous driving practices like driving under the influence
and speeding. These campaigns effectively employ the social
and emotional consequences of traffic violations on personal
and community connections to foster compliance with road
safety regulations (Allan et al., 2017; Homel, 1988). Education
and awareness campaigns targeted at reducing traffic-related
offences are examples of proactive informal sanctions
designed to deter the community from engaging in unsafe
and unlawful behaviours. To influence behaviour, campaigns
target awareness of practices, punishment, and avoidance
tactics used by drivers, and often communicate the potential
consequences of offending. These campaigns focus not only
on communicating the tangible risks associated with
dangerous driving like injury or death but also depict informal
124 | Deterrence
costs like social shame associated with dangerous driving (see
Owens & Boorman, 2011 pp. 10-11).
Economic Theories and Decision-Making

Processes
Gary Becker’s (1968) economic approach to crime frames the

decision-making process of engaging in criminal activities
within the broader context of rational choice theory and
economic analysis. This approach acknowledges a broader
range of factors influencing criminal choices, beyond just the
fear of punishment. It advocates for a strategic mix of legal
penalties and socio-economic policy interventions aimed at
reducing the attractiveness of criminal behaviour.
The advancements mentioned above broaden the scope of
deterrence theory, deepening our understanding of the
decision-making processes for criminal behaviour. These
adaptations address multiple critiques of classical deterrence
theory, leading to a resurgence of scholarly discussions and
inquiry into its effectiveness as a framework for understanding
and preventing crime.
Applications Beyond “Traditional Offences”
In recent years, deterrence theory has expanded its application

beyond traditional crime, finding relevance in various domains
and offences. The deterrence literature has expanded to
include a broader range of non-traditional offences, such as
environmental crime (Simpson et al., 2013), cybercrime (Bossler,
2019), terrorism (Kroenig & Pavel, 2012), and human rights
violations (Kim & Sikkink, 2010). One notable area of
advancement is the application of deterrence principles to
Deterrence | 125
corporate crime, where the focus shifts from individual
offenders to organisations and their decision-making
processes (Simpson et al., 2014).
These developments highlight the evolving nature of
deterrence theory and its applicability across different contexts
and enforcement actions, which may be underpinned by
shame, vicarious punishment or injury, and therefore social
learning. Harnessing a crime problem from a multi-disciplinary
approach expands the boundaries of deterrence theory to
better understand its effectiveness and abilities to leverage risk
and benefits in altering the decision-making process.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, classical deterrence theory has served as a

cornerstone in understanding and shaping criminal justice
systems globally. It offers a framework that emphasises the
rational choice of potential offenders, highlighting the
significance of punishment in influencing decision-making
processes to prevent crime.
Throughout this chapter, we explored the evolution and
application of classical deterrence theory, delving into its key
concepts such as rational choice, general and specific
deterrence, and the principles of punishment severity,
swiftness, and certainty. We examined how these principles
inform criminal justice policies, sentencing practices, and law
enforcement strategies, emphasising the balance between
deterrence and fairness within legal systems.
Despite facing criticism for oversimplification, mixed
empirical support for its effectiveness, and an overreliance on
formal sanctions, recent interdisciplinary insights have helped
refine the deterrence doctrine to make it relevant in
126 | Deterrence
addressing contemporary challenges and diverse forms of
criminal behaviour.

here:
1. How does rational choice theory explain human

behaviour within the framework of classical
deterrence theory?
2. What are the concepts of specific deterrence
and general deterrence within classical
deterrence theory?
3. What are some examples of how the principles
Deterrence | 127
of certainty, severity, and celerity of punishment
are applied in Australian criminal justice policies?
REFERENCES
Allan, A., Poynton, S., & Paternoster, R. (2017). Informal sanctions

and individual crime: A systematic review. Criminology &
Criminal Justice, 17(1), 24-45. http://doi.org/10.1177/
1748895816645308
Allen, S., Murphy, K., & Bates, L. (2017). What drives
compliance? The effect of deterrence and shame emotions on
young drivers’ compliance with road laws. Policing and society,
27(8), 884-898. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2015.1115502
Andenaes, J. (1968). Punishment and deterrence. University
of Michigan Press.
Andenaes, J. (1974). The General Preventive Effects of
Punishment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 114, 949.
Apel, R., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). General deterrence: A review
of recent evidence. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.). Crime
and public policy (pp. 411-436). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Armstrong, K. A., Watling, C. N., & Davey, J. D. (2018).
Deterrence of drug driving: The impact of the ACT drug driving
legislation and detection techniques. Transportation
Research Part F, Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 54,
138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.01.014
Australian Law Reform Commission. (2018) Pathways to
Justice-Inquiry into the Incarceration Rate of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Peoples (ALRC Report 183).
Bailey, M. (2021, July 26). Queensland Government.
128 | Deterrence
Bates, L., Anderson, L., Rodwell, D., & Blais, E. (2020). A
qualitative study of young drivers and deterrence based road
policing. Transportation research part F: Traffic Psychology
and
Behaviour, 71, 110-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.04.003
Beccaria, C. (1764). On Crimes and Punishments. Marc-Michel
Rey.
Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic
approach. The Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169-217.
doi.org/10.1086/259394
Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals
and Legislation. T. Payne and Son.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., & Nagin, D. (1978). Deterrence and
incapacitation: Estimating the effects of criminal sanctions on
crime rates (No. 2649). Washington, DC: National Academy of
Sciences.
Bossler, A. M. (2019). Perceived formal and informal sanctions
on the willingness to commit cyber attacks against domestic
and foreign targets. Journal of Crime and Justice, 42(5),
599-615. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2019.1692423
Braga, A. A. (2005). Hot spots policing and crime prevention:
A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Journal
of Experimental Criminology, 1(3), 317-342. doi.org/10.1007/
s11292-005-1171-8
Brown, M., & Pratt, T. C. (2000). The use of imprisonment in
England and Wales. In M. Tonry & R. S. Frase (Eds.), Sentencing
and sanctions in western countries (pp. 197-244).
Oxford University Press.
Chaflin, A., & McCrary, J. (2017). The deterrent effects of prison:
Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Political
Economy, 125(5), 1306-1352. https://doi.org/10.1086/694965
Cismaru, M., Lavack, A. M., & Markewich, E. (2009). Social
marketing campaigns aimed at preventing drunk driving: A
review and recommendations. International Marketing
Review, 26(3), 292-311. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330910960799
Deterrence | 129
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human
capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Davey, J., Freeman, J., Palk, G., & Lavelle, A. (2008). The self-
reported impact of legal and non-legal sanctions on drug
driving behaviours in Queensland: A study of general motorists
and convicted offenders. In Proceedings of the Australasian
Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference
2008: Safer Roads, Safer Speeds, Safer People, Safer Vehicles.
(pp. 416-425). Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and
Education Conference.
Day, A., McLachlan, K., and Ross, S. The effectiveness of
minimum non-parole period schemes for serious violent,
sexual and drug offenders and evidence-based approaches to
community protection, deterrence and rehabilitation
(Summary Report, University of Melbourne, August 2021)
(‘University of Melbourne Literature Review’).
Donohue, J. J. (2009). The impact of increased apprehension
on crime rates: Evidence from New York City. Journal of Legal
Studies, 38(1), 131-159. https://doi.org/10.1086/597173
Ehsani, J. P., Bingham, C. R., Ionides, E., & Childers, D. (2014).
The impact of Michigan’s text messaging restriction on motor
vehicle crashes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54(5), S68–S74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.01.003
Felson, M., & Messner, S. F. (1996). To punish or to assist?
That is the question. Law and Society Review, 30(2), 289-314.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3053999
Frase, R. S. (1997). Sentencing reform in overcrowded times: A
comparative perspective. Oxford University Press.
Freeman, J., & Watson, B. (2006). An application of Stafford
and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence to a group of
recidivist drink drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
38(3), 462-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.11.001.
Freeman, J., Liossis, P., & David, N. (2006). Deterrence,
defiance and deviance: An investigation into a group of
130 | Deterrence
recidivist drink drivers’ self-reported offending
behaviours. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology,
39(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.39.1.1
Freeman, J., Parkes, A., Lewis, N., Davey, J. D., Armstrong, K.
A., & Truelove, V. (2020). Past behaviours and future intentions:
An examination of perceptual deterrence and
alcohol consumption upon a range of drink driving events.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 137, 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.aap.2019.105428
Freeman, J., Szogi, E., Truelove, V., & Vingilis, E. (2016). The law
isn’t everything: The impact of legal and non-legal sanctions on
motorists’ drink driving behaviors. Journal of Safety Research,
59, 53-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2016.10.001
Gibbs, J. P. (1975). Crime, punishment, and deterrence. The
Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, 56(3), 439-453. JSTOR
43179579
Hassan, E. H., Bates, L., McLean, R., & Ready, J. (2022).
Influencing driver offending behavior: using an integrated
deterrence-based model. Crime & Delinquency, DOI:
00111287221130950.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press
Homel, R. (1988). Policing and punishing the drinking driver:
A study of general and specific deterrence. Springer Science &
Business Media.
Homel, R. (1988). Policing and punishing the drinking driver:
a study of general and specific deterrence. Springer-Verlag.
Homel, R. (1994). Drink-driving law enforcement and the legal
blood alcohol limit in New South Wales. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 26(2), 147-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/
00014575(94)90084-1
Kaviani, F., Benier, K., Robards, B., Young, K. L., & Koppel, S.
(2021a). “Does that mean I can’t use my phone to pay when I’m
in the Maccas drive thru?”: Younger drivers’ uncertainty and
Deterrence | 131
attitude toward smartphone law and punishment. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 160, 106314.
Kaviani, F., Young, K. L., & Koppel, S. (2022a). Deterring illegal
smartphone use while driving: Are perceptions of risk
information associated with the impact of informal
sanctions? Accident Analysis & Prevention, 168, 106611.
Kaviani, F., Young, K. L., Robards, B., & Koppel, S. (2020a).
Understanding the deterrent impact formal and informal
sanctions have on illegal smartphone use while driving.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 145, 105706. https://doi:org/
10.1016/j.aap.2020.105706
Kennedy, D. M. (1997). Pulling levers: Chronic offenders, high-
crime settings, and a theory of prevention. Valparaiso Univ.
Law Review, 31, 449.
Kim, H., & Sikkink, K. (2010). Explaining the deterrence effect
of human rights prosecutions for transitional countries.
International studies quarterly, 54(4),
939-963. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40931149
Kroenig, M., & Pavel, B. (2012). How to deter terrorism. The
Washington Quarterly, 35(2), 21-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0163660X.2012.665339
Lewis, I., Watson, B., Tay, R., & White, K. M. (2007). The role
of fear appeals in improving driver safety: A review of the
effectiveness of fear-arousing (threat) appeals in road
safety advertising. International Journal of Behavioral
Consultation and Therapy, 3(2), 203. https://doi.org/10.1037/
h0100799
Martin, S. E., Annan, S., & Forst, B. (1993). The special deterrent
effects of a jail sanction on first-time drunk drivers: A quasi-
experimental study. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
25(5), 561-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(93)90008-K
McCartt, A. T., Hellinga, L. A., Strouse, L. M., & Farmer, C. M.
(2010). Long-Term Effects of Handheld Cell Phone Laws on
Driver Handheld Cell Phone Use. Traffic Injury Prevention, 11(2),
133–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389580903515427
132 | Deterrence
Menéndez, P., & Weatherburn, D. J. (2016). Does the threat
of longer prison terms reduce the incidence of assault?
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49(3),
389-404. http://doi:10.1177/0004865815575397
Miller, P., Farmer, C., Robertson, N., Curtis, A., Taylor, N.,
Coomber, K., … & Ferris, J. (2023). Mandatory networked id
scanners in nightlife precincts across Queensland, Australia:
Key stakeholder perspectives on policy and practice.
International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy,
12(4). https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.2674
Mills, L. & Freeman, J. (2023) The drink and drug driving
behaviours of young Queensland drivers and attitudes toward
apprehension. Traffic Injury Prevention, 24(7), 521-526.
https://DOI:10.1080/15389588.2023.2215889
Nagin, D. S. (1978). General deterrence: A review of the
empirical evidence. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and
justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 1, pp.
257-304). University of Chicago Press.
Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence in the twenty-first century.
Crime and Justice, 42(1), 199-263. https://doi.org/10.1086/670819
Nagin, D. S., & Pogarsky, G. (2001). Integrating celerity,
impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of
general deterrence: Theory and evidence. Criminology, 39(4),
865-892. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00943.x
Ogden, J., Brown, P. M., & George, A. M. (2022). Young drivers
and smartphone use: The impact of legal and non-legal
deterrents. Journal of safety research, 83, 329-338.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2022.09.007
Owens K, P., & Boorman, M. (2011) Evaluating the deterrent
effect of random breath testing (RBT) and random drug testing
(RDT)—The driver’s perspective. National Drug
Law Enforcement Research Fund, ACT
Paternoster, R., & Piquero, A. R. (1995). Reconceptualizing
deterrence: An empirical test of personal and vicarious
Deterrence | 133
experiences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
32(3), 251-286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427895032003001
Phillips, R. O., Ulleberg, P., & Vaa, T. (2011). Meta-analysis of the
effect of road safety campaigns on accidents. Accident Analysis
& Prevention, 43(3), 1204-1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.aap.2011.01.002
Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Daigle, L. E., & Madensen,
T. D. (2006). The empirical status of deterrence theory: A meta-
analysis. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking
stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 367-395).
Transaction Publishers.
Queensland Government. (2021, 1 Jan). Streetsmart: Drug
driving.
Queensland Government. (2023a, 1 July). Being charged with
drink driving.
Queensland Government. (2023b, 31 October). Alcohol
ignition interlocks.
Queensland Police Service. (2003) Annual Report
Queensland Government. 2002–2003. In D., & Freeman, J. E.
(2011). Improving road safety through deterrence-based
initiatives: A review of research. Sultan Qaboos University
Medical Journal, 11(1), 29. PMID: 21509205
Queensland Police Service. (2024, 7 February). Drink driving.
Rahman, S. (2022). The effectiveness of alcohol interlocks in
reducing repeat drink driving and improving road safety.
Ratcliffe, J. H., Taniguchi, T., Groff, E. R., & Wood, J. D. (2009).
The Philadelphia foot patrol experiment: A randomized
controlled trial of police patrol effectiveness in violent
crime hotspots. Criminology, 47(3), 795-831. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00157.x
Redlich, A. D., & Summers, A. (2012). The effect of court
appointed representation on criminal case outcomes:
Evidence from Cook County, Illinois. Journal of Empirical
Legal Studies, 9(4), 792-817. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1740-1461.2012.01257.x
134 | Deterrence
Roberts, J. V. (2003). Public opinion and mandatory
sentencing: A review of international findings. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 30(4), 483-508. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0093854803253133
Roberts, J. V., & Stalans, L. J. (1997). Consistency and disparities
in punishment. Social Forces, 75(4), 1207-1230. https://doi.org/
10.2307/2580561
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997).
Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of
collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924. https://doi.org/
10.1126/science.277.5328.918
Sarre, R., & Prenzler, T. (2011). Criminology: A sociological
introduction. Routledge.
Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Sherman, L. W., & Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent
effects of police patrol in crime “hot spots”: A randomized,
controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 625-648. https://doi.org/
10.1080/07418829500096221
Simpson, S. S., & Koper, C. S. (1992). Deterring corporate crime.
Criminology, 30(3), 347-376. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1745-9125.1992.tb01108.x
Simpson, S. S., Gibbs, C., Rorie, M., Slocum, L. A., Cohen, M. A., &
Vandenbergh, M. (2013). An empirical assessment of corporate
environmental crime-control strategies. The Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, 231-278. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/24615613
Simpson, S. S., Rorie, M., Alper, M., Schell‐Busey, N., Laufer,
W. S., & Smith, N. C. (2014). Corporate crime deterrence: A
systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1-105.
https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2014.4
Skogan, W. G. (2006). Asymmetry in the impact of encounters
with the police. Policing and Society, 16(1), 99-126.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10439460500337469
Tonry, M. (2011). The social, psychological, and political causes
Deterrence | 135
of racial disparities in the American criminal justice system.
Crime and Justice, 39(1), 273-312. https://doi.org/10.1086/655350
Tonry, M. (2014). Incapacitation: Penal confinement and the
restraint of crime. Oxford University Press.
Truelove, V., Davey, B., & Watson-Brown, N. (2023). Examining
the differences in perceived legal and non-legal factors
between drink driving and drug driving. Journal of
Criminology, 56(1), 59-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/
26338076221114481
Truelove, v., Freeman, J., & Davey, J. (2019b). “You can’t be
deterred by stuff you don’t know about”: Identifying factors
that influence graduated driver licensing rule compliance.
Safety Science, 313-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.09.007
Truelove, V., Freeman, J., Mills, L., Kaye, S. A., Watson, B., &
Davey, J. (2021). Does awareness of penalties influence
deterrence mechanisms? A study of young drivers’ awareness
and perceptions of the punishment applying to illegal phone
use while driving. Transportation research part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 78, 194-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.trf.2021.02.006
Truelove, V., Freeman, J., Szogi, E., Kaye, S., Davey, J., &
Armstrong, K. (2017). Beyond the threat of legal sanctions:
What deters speeding behaviours? Transportation research
part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 50, 128-136.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.08.008
Truelove, V., Oviedo-Trespalacios, O., Freeman, J., & Davey, J.
(2021). Sanctions or crashes? A mixed-method study of factors
influencing general and concealed mobile phone use while
driving. Safety science, 135, 105119. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ssci.2020.105119
Turner, S., & Petersilia, J. (1992). Intensive supervision
programs for juvenile delinquents: A community corrections
alternative. Crime & Delinquency, 38(1), 49-71. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0011128792038001003
136 | Deterrence
von Hirsch, A. (1993). Censure and sanctions. Oxford
University Press.
von Hirsch, A., & Ashworth, A. (2005). Proportionate
sentencing: Exploring the principles, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Watling, C. N., Palk, G. R., Freeman, J. E., & Davey, J. D. (2010).
Applying Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence
theory to drug driving: Can it predict those likely to offend?
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(2),
452–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.09.007
Watson, B., Siskind, V., Fleiter, J. J., Watson, A., & Soole, D.
(2015). Assessing specific deterrence effects of increased
speeding penalties using four measures of recidivism. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 84, 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.aap.2015.08.006
Weatherburn, D., Moffatt, S., 2011. The specific deterrent effect
of higher fines on drink driving offenders. British Journal of
Criminology. 51(5), 789–803. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azr043
Wikström, P. O., & Treiber, K. (2007). The role of self-control
in crime causation: Beyond Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general
theory of crime. European Journal of Criminology,
4(2), 237-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370807074516
Yu, J., & Williford, W. R. (1995). Drunk-driving recidivism:
predicting factors from arrest context and case disposition.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 56(1), 60-66. https://doi.org/
10.15288/jsa.1995.56.60
Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. (1973). Deterrence: The legal
threat in crime control. University of Chicago Press
Deterrence | 137
5. Sociological Theories
of Crime: Strain
Theories
TRACY MEEHAN; LUCY FORRESTER; AND JAANA A. HAAJA
Learning Objectives
• Explain the fundamental concepts of traditional

strain theory and their connection to society.
• Identify how traditional strain theories were
adapted into General Strain Theory and be able to
explain the fundamental concepts of GST.
• Assess the relevance of strain theory in
understanding modern social issues, such as
juvenile delinquency and the strain experienced
in First Nations communities.
138 | Strain Theories

Before You Begin
• Do you think different communities have

different ways to measure success? Give some
examples of your thinking.
• What is your idea of a ‘good life?’ How will you
know that you have ‘made it’ in your life?
• How do you deal with stress or
disappointment? What things make you feel
better?
INTRODUCTION
It will come as no surprise to you that our culture has a very

specific idea of what success is: an education, a good career, a
house, and a family. Maybe even a pet and an annual vacation.
And all of this should be attainable with a strong work ethic,
by following the rules of society. This is a standard westernised
idea of success, but it is one that has become shared by many
cultures all over world. Individuals may hold different values
but most of our social institutions are designed to support this
very narrow definition. After all, you are most likely reading this
because you are a student in a university degree, hoping to
graduate and find a fulfilling career that will allow you to have
Strain Theories | 139

the kind of life you want. And there’s no shame in that; most of
us fall into this category.
But what happens when society is set up in such a way that
certain groups cannot achieve the agreed version of success,
no matter how hard they try? How do we explain that? Classical
theories of criminology, like deterrence, put much of the blame
on individual level decision making. But sociologists in the
1920s and 1930s started asking how our wider cultural norms
contribute to criminal behaviour. This school of criminological
soon led to several new theoretical perspectives. In this
chapter, we will discuss the perspectives known as strain
theories. The two main theories in this chapter are: traditional
strain theory, often known as anomie theory; and General
Strain Theory (GST).
Traditional strain theory is a macro-level theory. This means
that it strives to explain the impact of social structure and
institutions on social phenomena, like crime. It is not intended
to explain the experience of individuals, but rather of society.
General Strain Theory is a micro-level theory. This means that
it strives to explain the behaviour of individuals. It is the more
common form of strain theory that we test and apply today.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Traditional strain theory is a macro-level theory, which means

that it aims to provide an explanation for social level
phenomena, like crime rates. It was developed by American
sociologist Robert K. Merton in the early 20th century, it
emerged as a ground-breaking perspective within the field of
criminology. The theory itself took shape in the 1930s and 1940s,
a period marked by the Great Depression and the aftermath of
World War II (Akers, 1998, 2000). Merton sought to understand
the relationship between societal structures and deviant

behaviour, departing from earlier criminological theories that
predominantly focused on individual pathology.
Born in 1910, Merton was influenced by the social and
economic transformations in the United States during his
youth (Akers, 1998; 2001; 2006). Merton sought to understand
the relationship between societal structures and deviant
behaviour. Drawing inspiration from Émile Durkheim’s
concept of anomie, Merton’s strain theory revolves around the
idea that social structure exerts pressure on individuals, leading
to a disconnect between cultural goals and the legitimate
means available to achieve them. Anomie is a term that refers
to a condition of dysregulation, or breakdown of the rules, that
happens in society. When this breakdown happens, people do
not know the expectations and a form of social chaos can
ensue (Durkheim & Coser, 1984).
In post-World War II America, there was a prevailing cultural
1
emphasis on the “American Dream ,” promoting the pursuit
of material success through hard work and dedication
(Durkheim, 1989; Broidy, 2001 & Agnew, 2006). This material
success could be considered a cultural goal. But Merton
observed that not everyone had equal access to the approved
or legitimate means for achieving success. After all, not
everyone can attend a prestigious school or afford a fancy car.
Traditional strain theory is Merton’s explanation of what will
happen to various types of societies when this breakdown
occurs.
Strain theory has been influential in shaping criminological
thought and has been applied to various social contexts to
analyse the relationship between societal pressures, cultural
1. The American Dream as a term has become a reflection of

many of the goals that occupy Westernised society, including
things like financial security, a house in the suburbs, and a
stereotypical family.

expectations, and deviant behaviour. But it did not help
scholars understand why individuals committed crime. Many
criticised it as being too deterministic and pointed out that
plenty of people in a society that is dysregulated will still follow
2
the law. In the late 1970s, sociologist Robert Agnew It is here
that we see the extension of General Strain Theory, which
proposed that individuals who experienced certain types of
strain may commit crime.
Each of these theories is explained in detail below.
2. Interested in learning more about Professor Robert Agnew

and his contributions to criminology? Check out his interview
with Professor Timothy Brezina as part of the Oral History
Project of the American Society of Criminology.

Table 5.1: Strain Theory – Timeline
Merton published "Social Structure and Anomie,"

1938 introducing the concept of anomie, a state of
normlessness in society.
Merton published "Social Theory and Social Structure,"
outlining Strain Theory as a response to anomie. He
1957
identified five modes of individual adaptation to societal
norms.
Strain theory gained popularity and became influential

during the 1960s. Sociologists and criminologists started
1960's
using and testing the ideas presented by Merton in
various contexts.
Albert Cohen published "Delinquent Boys," expanding on

1968 Merton's theory by introducing the concept of status
frustration.
Robert Agnew introduced General Strain Theory, which

expanded Merton's ideas by including sources of strain
1979
beyond economic goals, such as the loss of positive
stimuli or the presentation of negative stimuli.
Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson critiqued Strain
1990's Theory, arguing that delinquency is better explained by a
lack of self-control.
Steven F. Messner and Richard Rosenfeld published
"Crime and the American Dream," which applied strain
theory to the explanation of crime rates in the United
1992
States. This work contributed to the ongoing
development and application of strain theory in different
social contexts
Robert Agnew published "An Integrated Theory of the
2003 Adolescent Peak in Offending," further developing
General Strain Theory.
Strain Theory continued to influence research in
2010
criminology, sociology, and related fields, with scholars
onwards
exploring its applicability to various social contexts.

THEORY DESCRIPTION
Traditional Strain Theory
Traditional train theory emphasises the role of social structure

in influencing individual behaviour. It underscores how
unequal access to opportunities and resources can lead to
strain, pushing individuals toward various forms of deviance
(Agnew, 1985, 1992, 2006). Social structure, including factors
like socioeconomic status, education, and employment
opportunities, plays a crucial role in shaping the ways that
societies or subcultures react to this unequal access. Merton
proposed five reactions, or adaptations, that societies could
have. Each adaptation is a way to deal with the disconnect, or
disjuncture, between cultural goals and the legitimate means
for achieving those goals.
Each adaptation is a response to society expectations. Figure
5.1 presents the five adaptations. The five adaptations are:
conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion
(Akers, 1998; Agnew, 2006). Each on represents a relationship
between the acceptance ( ) or rejection (-) of cultural goals and
legitimate means.
Adaptation Cultural Goals Legitimate Means
Conformity + +
Ritualism – +
Innovation + –
Retreatism – –
Rebellion 0 0
Figure 5.1: Five Reactions to Anomie

Conformity is the adherence to both cultural goals and

legitimate means. In a society where opportunities are readily
available and accessible, individuals are more likely to conform
and pursue the culturally prescribed goals through approved
means. Conformity is the most prevalent response when the
alignment between goals and means is intact (Agnew, 2001).
Ritualism occurs when individuals abandon the pursuit of
cultural goals but continue to rigidly adhere to the
institutionalised means. These individuals may follow societal
norms and rules diligently, even though they no longer
harbour aspirations for the original cultural goals (Kaufman et
al., 2010; Akers, 2001).
When individuals face a strain between societal expectations
and the means available, they may turn to innovation to
achieve cultural goals. Innovation involves accepting culturally
approved goals but rejecting or modifying the means to reach
them. This can lead to deviant behaviours, such as engaging
in criminal activities or adopting unconventional strategies to
attain success (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).
Retreatism involves rejecting both cultural goals and
institutionalised means, leading individuals to withdraw from
conventional societal structures. Substance abuse and
vagrancy are examples of retreatist behaviours, where
individuals disengage from societal norms altogether (Henry &
Lukas, 2009).
Rebellion is a more proactive response to societal strain.
Individuals who rebel against the existing cultural goals and
means seek to replace them with alternative values and
structures. This can take the form of social or political
movements that challenge the established order (Agnew, 2001;
Lilly & Cullen, 2007). Rebellion represents an effort to create a
new system that aligns more closely with the values and goals
of the dissenting group.

One or more interactive elements has been
excluded from this version of the text. You can
view them online here: https://oercollective.caul.edu.au/
criminology-criminal-justice/?p=144#oembed-1
This video from ShortcutsTV demonstrates the five modes of

adaptation.
General Strain Theory
Because traditional strain theory is a macro-level theory, it can

be difficult to test or interpret. Traditional strain theory mainly
focused on blocked paths to success and was mainly applied
to criminal behaviour among low socioeconomic status, mostly
male offenders. Critics argued that traditional strain theory was
oversimplified and early research did not have empirical
3
support (Froggio & Agnew, 2007). General Strain Theory (GST)
addresses these weaknesses.
In contrast to Merton’s classical strain theory, GST takes a
micro-level approach. GST shifted the focus of strain from a
structural explanation of crime to one rooted in the
psychosocial understanding of strain (Broidy, 2001).
Consequently, GST expanded the understanding of strain past
just thwarted opportunities to encompass a wider range of
stressors linked to strain. This perspective no longer assumes a
3. For an in-depth discussion about General Strain theory given

by Professor Agnew, check out a recent lecture at the
University of Tampa.

universal cultural of shared goals, making GST more adaptable
to individual variations in goals, as well as differences in class,
culture and gender (Broidy, 2001). Furthermore, GST enhanced
the versatility of applying strain to outcomes that include
criminal behaviour and factors outside of crime and
delinquency.
The heart of GST is the impact of negative relationships and
the resulting psychological distress they induce. These
connections may involve individuals or societal frameworks, yet
in both scenarios, individuals feel they are being treated in a
way that goes against their desires (Froggio & Agnew, 2007).
Agnew (1992) outlined three primary routes where negative
relationships can exert influence (p. 47):
1. strain stemming from the actual or expected failure to

achieve positively valued goals.
2. strain arising from the actual or anticipated loss of valued
stimuli.
3. strain originating from the actual or anticipated exposure
to undesirable stimuli.
When individuals experience these strains, one outcome is

negative emotion. Negative emotion then leads individuals
to come up with coping mechanisms to help alleviate those
negative feelings. Coping mechanisms can be positive or
negative, but one potential outcome is that people engage
in crime and antisocial behaviour to deal with the negative
emotion that they are feeling.
The intensity, duration, recentness, and centrality of strain
play crucial roles in shaping its effects. The more severe a strain
in terms of intensity, the stronger the potential impact.
Particularly intense strains may reduce the perceived costs of
resorting to criminal behaviour for coping (Baron, 2004).
Persistent strain (duration) that occurs over an extended period
(chronic stressors) or tend to exert more influence than

occasional ones, especially if the ongoing or frequent strains
persist without resolution (Agnew, 2001).
The effects of strain on a person can vary. GST suggests that

individuals who experience high amounts of strain may use coping
mechanisms that include delinquent behavior.
Studio Stresses: Sean by Michael Clesle is licensed under CC-BY-NC
2.0
APPLICATIONS OF THEORY
Strain Theory and Offending
Examples of strains include parental abuse, excessive parental

discipline and rejection, adverse school experiences that can
include failing grades or strained relationships with teachers,
victimisation by bullying or peer mistreatment, experiences of
criminal victimisation, marital conflicts, unemployment or
underemployment, racial discrimination, residing in

economically disadvantaged neighbourhoods, homelessness
and the inability to fulfil the desires for wealth, excitement, and
social status (Agnew, 1992, 2001; 2006).
According to GST, the stress resulting from experiencing
negative emotions due to strain serves as a catalyst for
engaging in antisocial behaviours as a coping mechanism
(Baron, 2004; Broidy, 2001; Froggio & Agnew, 2007). Individual
resources such as self-esteem, self-worth, and self-efficacy,
along with personal characteristics affecting coping abilities
such as intelligence, creativity, and problem-solving skills, may
shape the link between strain and antisocial outcomes (Agnew,
1992; Broidy, 2001).
Strains and Adaptations: Merton’s Framework in First

Nations Disadvantage
Merton’s Strain Theory provides one framework for

examining the complexities of disadvantage
experienced by First Nations people in Australia. This
perspective enables an in-depth examination of the
historical and contemporary societal factors that
contribute to the challenges faced by these
communities. The theory illuminates the strains
experienced by First Nations individuals in Australia
and the various ways in which they adapt in response.
Merton’s emphasis on using legitimate means to
achieve culturally accepted goals is particularly relevant
for First Nations communities, whose norms and
aspirations revolve around preserving cultural identity,

traditions, and community well-being (Smith, 2012).
However, the imposition of colonial policies and
enduring effects of historical trauma have disrupted
the alignment between these cultural goals and the
available means for their realisation.
The history of First Nations people is characterised by

dispossession, violence, and cultural assimilation, with
colonial policies leaving a lasting impact on cultural
continuity (Cunneen & Tauri, 2019). This historical
trauma creates significant strain, disconnecting
culturally accepted goals from viable means for
attainment.Cultural marginalisation further
compounds this strain as First Nations people navigate
a society that often dismisses or misunderstands their
cultural practices (Cunneen & Tauri, 2019). This strain
becomes evident in the clash between cultural
identities and societal expectations, compelling
individuals to navigate the complexities of conforming
to mainstream norms while preserving their
Indigenous heritage.
Socioeconomic disparities compound these strains,

as evidenced by high unemployment rates,
educational and healthcare inequities, inadequate
resources, lack of community connectedness, and over-
representation in the criminal justice system
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2022; Dockery, 2010;
Marmot, 2011).
In this context, anomie may occur because of a

disjunction between culturally prescribed societal goals
and the limited access to legitimate means available to
First Nations communities. Anomie manifests as a

complex social phenomenon, reflecting the struggles
of First Nations communities in reconciling cultural
identity within social structures that perpetuate
disadvantage.
The interplay of these factors creates a web of strains

that individuals navigate through conformity, rebellion,
innovation, retreatism, and ritualism.
Case Study: General Strain Theory and

Intimate Partner Violence Prevention
Eriksson and Mazerolle (2013) suggest General Strain Theory

(GST) as a valuable framework to better understand the
perpetration and non-perpetration of intimate partner
homicide (IPH). By assessing gender-specific strains, negative
emotions toward strains, and conditional factors of strains, GST
not only provides insight into why men are overrepresented as
perpetrators of IPH but also why some women resort to such
violent acts.
1. Gender-Specific Strains: Men and women experience

different strains leading up to an IPH. Strain experienced
by male perpetrators of IPH include challenges to their
control or authority, loss of the relationship (separation),
forms of legal actions such as protection orders or arrest,
and infidelity. For female perpetrators of IPH, strains often
involve enduring abuse, restricted freedom, and threats to
themselves or their children.
2. Negative Emotions to Strain: There are distinct
differences in the emotional responses to strain between
male and female perpetrators of IPH. Male perpetrators

are more likely to respond to strain with negative
emotions of jealousy, intense anger, and abandonment-
rage, whereas female perpetrators often act out of fear or
desperation. Gender-specific negative emotions
stemming from strain play a crucial role in mediating the
path towards violent behaviour, particularly in the context
of (IPH).
3. Conditional Factors of Strain: Male and female
perpetrators of IPH are influenced by different conditional
factors that either exacerbate or mitigate the pathway
from strain to violence. For male perpetrators of IPH,
factors such as impulsivity, sensitivity to perceived threats,
and connections with criminal peers exacerbate strain. For
female perpetrators, negative reactions to strain are
increased by a perceived lack of social support and limited
access to essential resources.
Recognising the distinct experiences of strain that lead male

and female perpetrators to commit IPH is essential for
developing effective prevention strategies.
GST highlights the necessity of developing prevention
programs that cater to the specific experiences and needs of
men and women. By focusing on the specific strains and
emotional processes that lead to violence, these intervention
aims to address some of the underlying causes of IPH, fostering
safer and healthier relationships.
Enhancing access to social support and legal assistance plays
a pivotal role in how individuals cope with strain, making it
imperative for IPH prevention initiatives to bolster community
support systems, and improve access to legal and social
services. Educating practitioners and the public about the
relational strains that can escalate into IPH can assist in the
early identification of those at risk.
Finally, the application of GST to IPH calls for ongoing
research to further understand the complex interaction of

strain, emotions, and violence within intimate relationships.
Policymakers can use these insights to develop targeted
strategies for IPH prevention, focusing on reducing strains.
THEORY CRITICISMS
Critics argue that traditional strain theory places too much

emphasis on economic success as the primary goal in society.
It may not fully account for individuals who have different goals
or aspirations, such as achieving social recognition, personal
satisfaction, or community involvement, which may not align
with conventional success as defined by society (Bernard,
1984). They also argue that it does not adequately address
cultural variations in goals and means as different cultures
could have different definitions of success, and what
constitutes strain and deviance can also vary significantly
across societies (Briody, 2002; Jensen, 2020).
Another criticism is that strain theories offer a simplistic
explanation for deviant behaviour. While GST explains how
individuals might turn to deviance when they cannot achieve
success through legitimate means, the theory does not
account for the diversity of deviant behaviours or the complex
motivations behind them (Briody, 2002). Merton’s Strain Theory
assumes a universal pursuit of success and conformity to
cultural goals. There is the argument that these theories
primarily focus on explaining street-level crimes and neglect
aspects of white-collar crimes and elite deviance. It does not
account for how individuals with privileged access to resources
may engage in deviant behaviours or evade punishment
(Bernard, 1984; Kornhauser, 1978).

THE FUTURE OF THE THEORY
As with many criminological theories, strain theories will be put

to the test with emerging technologies and emerging crimes
that come as the result of these new ways to communicate
and interact. Recent research with cybercriminals (Dearden et
al., 2021) found that high levels of anomie was correlated with
increased cybercrime activity. Even in cyberspace, economic
strain continues to affect individuals’ behaviours and choices.
Many people have raised concerns that the post-COVID
world has led to more loneliness and relationship breakdown.
Could this be a sign of increased anomie? As economic stress
takes its toll on younger generations, will new structural goals
emerge? What will they be?
CONCLUSION
Strain theories provide a framework to understand the

complex relationship between societal pressures and criminal
behaviour. They suggest that individuals may resort to
deviance when confronted with a disjuncture between
societal expectations and the legitimate means available to
achieve them, leading to a state of anomie. By identifying
structural strains as catalysts for criminal conduct, traditional
strain Theory sheds light on the societal roots of deviant
behaviour. General Strain Theory offers an explanation for how
these strains may affect individuals and individual decision
making. These theories provide ongoing explanations about
the interplay of societal structures and individual responses to
strain, contributing significantly to our understanding of the
dynamics of criminal behaviour within a broader sociological
context.


here:
1. How does the concept of “anomie” relate to

Merton’s Strain Theory, and why is it important in
understanding deviance?
2. Merton’s theory suggests that American society
places a high value on success and the “American
Dream.” How do you think this holds up in
modern day Australia?
3. What is the relationship between negative
emotion and crime/delinquency? Can you think
of examples of negative emotions that you think
would be more likely to lead to antisocial
behaviour?

REFERENCES
Agnew, R. (1989). A longitudinal test of the revised strain

theory. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 5(4), 373–387.
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of
crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–88.
Agnew, R. (1997). Stability and change in crime over the life
course: A strain theory explanation. In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.),
Developmental theories of crime and delinquency (Vol. 7, pp.
101–132). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain
theory: Specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to
crime and delinquency, Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 38(4), 319–361.
Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into crime: an overview of
general strain theory (1st ed.). Roxbury Pub.
Akers, R. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A
general theory of crime and deviance. Boston: Northeastern
University Press.
Akers, R. (2000). Criminological theories: Introduction,
evaluation, and application. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Baron, S. W. (2004). General strain, street youth and crime: A
test of Agnew’s revised theory, Criminology, 42(2), 457-483.
Bernard, T. J. (1984). Control Criticisms of Strain Theories: An
Assessment of Theoretical and Empirical Adequacy. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21 (4): 353–372. doi:10.1177/
0022427884021004005
Broidy, L. M. (2001). A test of general strain theory.
Criminology. 39(1): 9–36. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00915.x.
ISSN 0011-1384
Broidy, L. M., & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general
strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 34(3), 275–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022427897034003001

Cunneen, C., & Tauri, J. M. (2019). Indigenous peoples,
criminology, and criminal justice. Annual Review of
Criminology, 2, 359–381
Dearden, T. E., Parti, K., & Hawdon, J. (2021). Institutional
anomie theory and cybercrime—cybercrime and the American
dream. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 37(3),
311–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862211001590
Dockery, A. M. (2010). Culture and wellbeing: The case of
Indigenous Australians. Social Indicators Research, 99, 315-332.
Durkheim, É., & Coser, L. A. (1984). The division of labor in
society. (W. D. Halls, Trans.). Free Press.
Durkheim, É., Spaulding, J. A., & Simpson, G. (2002). Suicide: a
study in sociology (Ser. Routledge classics). Routledge.
Eriksson, L., & Mazerolle, P. (2013). A general strain theory
of intimate partner homicide. Aggression and violent
behavior, 18(5), 462-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2013.07.002
Froggio, G., & Agnew, R. (2007). The relationship between
crime and “objective” versus “subjective” strains. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 35(1), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jcrimjus.2006.11.017
Jensen, G. F. (2020). Salvaging structure through strain: A
theoretical and empirical critique. In The legacy of anomie
theory (pp. 139–158). Routledge.
Kaufman, J. M., Agnew, R., & Henry, S. (2010). Anomie, strain
and subcultural theories of crime. Taylor and Francis.
Kornhauser, R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency: an
appraisal of analytic models. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2007). Criminological
theory: context and consequences (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Marmot, M. (2011). Social determinants and the health of
Indigenous Australians. Medical Journal of Australia, 194,
512–513. doi:10.5694/j .1326-5377.2011.tb03086.x
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies (2nd ed.). Zed
Books.

Versioning History
This page provides a record of edits and changes made to this
book since its initial publication. Whenever edits or updates
are made in the text, we provide a record and description of
those changes here. If the change is minor, the version number
increases by 0.1. If the edits involve substantial updates, the
edition number increases to the next whole number.
The files posted alongside this book always reflect the most
recent version. If you find an error in this book, please contact
CCJ_IntroText@griffith.edu.au
Version Date Change Details
March 18 Published
1.00 First publication of the text
2024 chapters 1-5
Versioning History | 159

Introduction To Criminology and Criminal Justice 1710286271

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction To Criminology and Criminal Justice 1710286271

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction to Criminology and Criminal

GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF

ADAM TURNER; ANNA L'ORANGE;

This book was published by Griffith University via the Council of

Introduction to Criminology and Criminal Justice: An Australasian

Additionally, permission has been sought for the following content,

• ‘Elicit the Change You Seek’ by Rachel Dioso-Villa is

Additionally, the following content is specifically excluded from the

• The Scientific Method as an Ongoing Process by

• Studio Stresses: Sean by Michael Clesle is licensed under

Additionally, some chapters contain third-party works licenced under

Recommended citation: Griffith University School of Criminology and

Recommended attribution: Introduction to Criminology and Criminal

Acknowledgement of Country xiv

About the Cover xv

About the Artist xvii

About the Authors xix

Part I. Main Body

Versioning History 159

Deputy Head of School, Learning & Teaching

xiv | Acknowledgement of Country

“Elicit the Change You Seek” 2024

About the Cover | xv

Artist: Rachel Dioso-Villa, PhD

Acrylic paint, graphite and oil pastel on watercolour paper

“In this painting, I traced the lines of my palm, as I wanted

xvi | About the Cover

Dr. Dioso-Villa and the textbook cover art

As an emerging mixed-media artist and socio-legal scholar at

About the Artist | xvii

xviii | About the Artist

About the Authors | xix

Accessibility features of the web

The web version of this resource has been designed with

• It has been optimized for people who use screen-reader

◦ all content can be navigated using a keyboard

Other file formats available

In addition to the web version, this book is available in a

In some cases, our open text includes third-party content. In

While we strive to ensure that this resource is as accessible and

Copyright Note: This accessibility disclaimer is adapted

Accessibility Information | xxi

Welcome to an Introduction to Criminology and Criminal

One explanation of criminal behaviour is that people live in

Each theory chapter is organised to help you understand a bit

The ways to change the system, of course, are dependent on

• To understand and define criminology and the

Crime and Criminology | 7

• When you hear the word criminology, what do

Welcome to the study of criminology and criminal justice. Have

8 | Crime and Criminology

Crime and Criminology | 9

10 | Crime and Criminology

Criminology and Science

What does it mean to be objective? Traditionally, this has

Crime and Criminology | 11

Figure 1.1: The Scientific Method

We use the scientific method to collect observations called

12 | Crime and Criminology

Figure 1.2: Inductive vs. deductive theory construction

Crime and Criminology | 13

Theories are, of course, only one way we know what we know.

Authoritarian Way of Knowing