CRIMINOLOGYthe cost of an item against the utility, or benefit to
be gained by owning that item. Likewise, before
engaging in crime, a person weighs the cost—
prison, loss of prestige, relationships, or even life—
against the benefits to crime—pleasure, expres-
sion of anger, or material gain. Becker argued that
when the benefits outweigh the cost individuals
would be more likely to commit criminal actions.
Control theory can also be thought of as a
rational choice theory. The ‘‘bonded’’ among us
have a stake in conformity, or something to weigh
on the ‘‘to be lost’’ side of a cost-benefit analysis.
To engage in crime is to risk the loss of valued
bonds to family, teachers, or employers. The bond
in control theory, thought of in this way, is an
informal deterrent. Deterrence theory (Geerken and
Gove 1975) is ordinarily written of in terms of a
formal system of deterrence provided by the crimi-
nal justice system. As originally conceived by Clas-
sical School criminologists, police, prosecutors,
and the courts endeavor to raise the cost of com-
mitting crime so that those costs outweigh the
benefits from illegal behavior. In the case of those
convicted, the courts attempt to do this by varying
the sentence so that those convicted become con-
vinced that they must avoid crime in the future.
This deterrence aimed at those already in violation
is referred to as ‘‘specific’’ or ‘‘special’’ deterrence.
The noncriminal public is persuaded by general
deterrence to avoid crime. They perceive that
crime does not pay when they see others sanc-
tioned. So, when considering criminal options,
they weigh the utility of illegal action against the
potential cost in the forms of sanctions. According
to deterrence theory, when those positive utilities
are outweighed by the perceived cost—effective
deterrence—they choose not to engage in crime.
A number of contemporary conflict theories of
criminology are legacies of 1960s and 1970s-era
critical perspectives. Most prominent among these
is feminist criminological theory (Simpson 1989). Con-
temporary conflict theories, like earlier Marxist
theory, address important questions about inter-
est groups. They begin with the position that to
understand social life, including crime and re-
sponses to crime, the social, political, and econom-
ic interests of contesting parties and groups must
be taken into account (Marxists, of course, fo-
cus on economic conflict). Feminist criminology
focuses on gender conflict in society. These
criminologists argue that to understand crimes by
women, against women, and the reaction to both,
we must consider the subordinate status of wom-
en. If poverty is one of the root causes of crime,
then we should recognize first that the largest
impoverished group in American society, and in
most western industrialized societies, is children.
Increasingly, children are raised in female-headed
households whose poverty can be traced to the
lower earnings of women, a consequence of gen-
der stratification.Other conflict analyses of crime focus on in-
come inequality (Blau and Blau 1982), racial ine-
quality (Sampson and Wilson 1994), and labor-
market stratification (Crutchfield and Pitchford
1997). What these approaches share is the idea
that to understand why individuals engage in crime,
or why some groups or geographic areas have
higher crime rates, or why patterns of criminal
justice are the way they are, consideration of im-
portant social conflicts and cleavages must be
brought into the analysis. Blau and Blau (1982)
illustrated how income inequality, especially ine-
quality based on race, is correlated with higher
rates of violent crime. Those metropolitan areas
with relatively high levels of inequality tend also to
have more violence. Others (Williams 1984; Messener
1989) have argued that it is not so much relative
inequality that leads to higher violent crime rates,
but rather high levels of poverty. Sampson and
Wilson (1994) argue that racial stratification is
linked to economic stratification and this complex
association accounts for higher levels of crime
participation among blacks. Crutchfield and Pitchford
(1997), studying a particular form of institutional
stratification that was produced by segmented
labor markets, found that those marginalized in
the work force under some circumstances are
more likely to engage in crime.Hagan, Gillis, and Simpson (1985) developed
what they call a ‘‘power control theory of delin-
quency.’’ They combine elements of social control
theory and conflict theory to explain class and
gender patterns of delinquency. They argue that
because of gender stratification, parents seek to
control their daughters more and because of class
stratification, those in the higher classes have more
capacity (because they have the available resourc-
es) to monitor (control) their children. Yet, child-
ren of the upper classes are actually free to commit