CRIMINOLOGYlaw come from? Whose interest does the law serve?
Why are the laws structured and enforced in par-
ticular ways? Their answers to these questions are
based on a class-conflict analysis. Power in social
systems is allocated according to social class, and
the powerful use the law to protect their inter-
ests and the status quo that perpetuates their
superordinate status. So the law and criminal jus-
tice system practices primarily serve the interest of
elites; while they at times serve the interests of
other classes, their raison d’être is the interests of
the powerful. Law is structured to protect the
current status arrangements.
Both the labeling and Marxist perspectives
experienced broad popularity among students of
criminology. Many scholars responded to their
critiques not by joining them, but by taking some
lessons from the debate and moving forward to
develop theories consistent with traditional direc-
tions and research methods that were not as de-
pendent on data generated by the criminal justice
system. Victimization surveys and self-report stud-
ies of crime have become more widely used, in part
as a consequence of these critiques.
All of the theories mentioned so far have had
significant empirical challenges. Most of the initial
statements have been falsified or their proponents
have had to revise the perspective in the face of
evidence that did not support it. Several of these
explanations of crime, or how societies control
their members, are used today in a modified form,
while others have evolved into contemporary theo-
ries that are being tested by researchers. No doubt
when someone writes about criminology in the
future, some or all of the more recent theories will
have joined those that have been falsified or modi-
fied as a result of empirical analyses. Contempo-
rary criminological theories tend to be in the
control theory, rational choice, or conflict tradi-
tions. However, these are not mutually exclusive
(e.g. some control theories are very much rational
choice theories).
Control theorists begin by saying that we ask the
wrong question when we seek to understand why
some people commit crimes. We should instead
seek to explain why most people do not violate the
rules. Control theorists reason that we do not need
to explain why someone who is hungry or has less
will steal from those who have what they want or
need. We do not need to explain why the frustrat-
ed and angry among us will express their feelings
violently. The interesting question is: Why don’t
most people who have less or have grievances
engage in property or violent crime? Other ver-
sions of control theory (Nye 1958; Reckless 1961)
preceded his, but Hirschi’s (1969) classic answer to
this question is that those who are ‘‘socially bond-
ed’’ to critical institutions such as families, schools,
conventional norms, etc., are less likely to violate
the law. The bonds give them a ‘‘stake in conformi-
ty,’’ something they value and would risk losing
should they violate important rules. Though not
initially stated in rational choice terms of classical
school ideas, one can see similarities between
Hirschi’s notions of ‘‘stakes in conformity’’ and
the Classical School of criminology’s concept of
the ‘‘social contract.’’Control theory has evolved in a number of
directions. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) have
argued that crime and deviance are a consequence
of the failure of some to develop adequate self-
control. Self-control is developed, if at all, early in
life—by the age of eight or ten. Those who do not
develop self-control will, they argue, exhibit vari-
ous forms (depending on their age) of deviance
throughout their lives. These people will commit
crimes disproportionately during the crime-prone
ages, between adolescence and the late twenties.
Sampson and Laub’s (1993) ‘‘life-course’’ perspec-
tive argues that social bonds change for people at
different stages of their lives. Bonds to families are
important early, to schools and law-abiding peers
later, and eventually bonds to spouses, one’s own
children, and jobs and careers ultimately tie peo-
ple to conventional norms and prevent crime and
deviance. Tittle (1995) has offered a control balance
theory of deviance. He believes that those who
balance control exerted by self with control by
others that they are subjected to are the least likely
to commit acts of crime and deviance. Those
whose ‘‘control ratio’’ is out of balance, with too
much or too little regulation by the self or others,
have a higher probability of breaking rules.The contemporary rational choice perspec-
tive of crime has been most explicitly articulated
by economists (Becker 1968; Ehrlich 1973). Becker
described the choices people make in social behav-
ior, including crime, as much like those made in
economic behavior. Before a purchase we weigh