Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 21:240–254, 2011
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1091-1359 print/1540-3556 online
DOI: 10.1080/10911359.2011.564553
Sociological Theories of Crime
and Delinquency
DAVID ZEMBROSKI
School of Social Welfare, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA
This review examines the most frequently cited sociological theories
of crime and delinquency. The major theoretical perspectives are
presented, beginning with anomie theory and the theories associated
with the Chicago School of Sociology. They are followed
by theories of strain, social control, opportunity, conflict, and
developmental life course. The review concludes with a conceptual
map featuring the inter-relationships and contexts of the major
theoretical perspectives.
KEYWORDS Crime, theory, Chicago, anomie, strain
INTRODUCTION
Beginning in the early twentieth century, theories about the causes of crime
began to move away from biological and psychological causes of human
behavior toward social environment explanations, such as slum life and the
society at large (Gelles & Levine, 1999). The most prominent and influential
sociological theories of crime and delinquency today have their roots in
the schools of thought beginning at the turn of the twentieth century; most
modern theories are, in essence, repackaged and polished versions of earlier
theories der to explain the political and social turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s
(Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 1989). This literature review examines several of the
major sociological theories by examining both the theories from the classical
schools of thoughts and those that emerged since the 1960s.
The review begins with the two classical sociological theories of crime
and delinquency: (1) the theory of anomie by Durkeim and (2) the theories
known as the Chicago School, including the theorists Park and Burgess,
Address correspondence to David Zembroski, School of Social Welfare, University of
California at Berkeley, 120 Haviland Hall #7400, Berkeley, CA 94720-7400, USA. E-mail:
davidzem@berkeley.edu
240
Sociological Theories of Crime and Delinquency 241
Shaw and McKay, and Sutherland and, respectively, the theories of ecological
analysis, cultural transmission, and differential association theory reflected in
poor urban neighborhoods. Deriving from the theory of anomie, the review
also focuses on the theories of strain theory, delinquent subcultures, and
opportunity theory based on the works of Merton, Cohen, and Cloward
and Ohlin, respectively. Also originating from the theory of anomie is the
theory of control that helps explain the violence and conflict of the 1960s
and 1970s (Hirschi, 1969). In addition to control theory, the review includes
conflict theories developed by Marx, Vold, Dahrendorf, and Turk. The review
concludes with the most recent theoretical contributions stemming from
developmental life course theories and a conceptual map that seeks to
integrate the various theories.
METHODS
The electronic database search began with Sociological Abstracts using the
descriptors of crime or delinquency, with AND as a Boolean operator, and
the title term theor* that yielded 1,194 references, and then added crime,
which reduced the yield to 535 references. Criminology textbooks including
Criminology (2001), the Encyclopedia of Criminology (2005), and The Handbook
of Crime and Punishment (Tonry, 1998) were reviewed to identify the
most prevalent and frequently cited theories and theorists. Using Sociological
Abstracts and Social Work Abstracts databases and running searches using
the descriptor crime with the title terms strain theory, Chicago school, control
theory, conflict theory, and developmental theory, roughly 100 different
theorists, researchers, and sub-theories appeared.
In consultation with a specialist on violence and forensic social work,
Dr. Mary Cavanaugh, eight highly influential theorists were selected and
compared to two sociology textbooks—Sociology (1999) and The Sociology of
Deviant Behavior (Clinard & Meier, 1968)—and yielded six major theoretical
perspectives. Taking into consideration the limited focus of this review, the
most frequently cited theorists were selected. Only theories that are strictly
sociological in nature are included; theories that incorporate psychological or
biological applications or any other social science discipline are not included.
Anomie
Much of contemporary sociological theory, especially the theoretical explanations
of crime and delinquency, begins with Durkheim’s classic work,
Suicide (1951), which led to Merton’s strain theory and control theories (Lilly
et al., 1989). During the late 1800s, when biological theories that explained
individual differences between criminals and non-criminals to explain the
abnormality of crime were the norm in the scientific community, Durkheim
242 D. Zembroski
(1951) wrote about the normality of crime in society. He explained that
human conduct and misconduct lay not in the individual but in the group
and social organization.
Like Marx and Engels who preceded him, Durkheim (1964) also placed
crime in the context of the division of labor and the degradation of society.
However, unlike Marx and Engels, Durkheim placed the moral order as more
important than the economic order as it relates to the decline of society. He
viewed the division of labor as a major contributor to social differentiation
and strained social relationships to the point that society could be held
together only by an external entity such as the state (Clinard & American
Sociological Association, 1964). According to Durkheim, simpler societies
were unified by a ‘‘mechanical solidarity’’ where work was monotonous,
conformity was the norm, and a strong, collective consciousness permeated
society. These societies were also marked by ‘‘integration’’: a state of cohesion,
strong social bonds, and the subordination of the self to a common
cause (Durkheim, 1951, p. 209). With increasing division of labor, societies
became more complex and unified through ‘‘organic solidarity’’ based on the
interdependence among individuals. These societies were marked by ‘‘regulation,’’
defined as the erosion of ‘‘mutual moral support,’’ the weakening of
the ‘‘collective force of society,’’ and extreme individualism that led towards
deviant behavior (Durkheim, 1951, pp. 209–214).
According to Durkheim (1964), in societies where the division of labor
and individual differences rise to prominence, social controls weaken and
lead to three abnormal forms of division of labor. Of the three abnormal
forms, the predominant abnormal condition is ‘‘anomic’’ where there is:
(1) a lack of integration of different work functions, (2) conflicts between
labor and capital, and (3) increasing specializations. This leads to a failure
to produce fulfilling and satisfying social relationships between members
of society, ultimately leading to a state of anomie (Durkheim, 1964). By
describing the breakdown of society based on the increasing division of
labor and erosion of moral order, Durkheim created, in effect, the structuralfunctionalist
perspective of crime (Lilly et al., 1989).
The structural-functionalist perspective stated that as society modernized,
urbanized, and increasingly changed, the intimacy of small, traditional
communities broke down. As group ties broke down alongside the decline
of a common set of rules, peoples’ lives became unpredictable as society
became full of inconsistencies and confusion as the interests and actions of
one group came into conflict with another (Clinard & American Sociological
Association., 1964). With the loss of distinct and long-established rules, the
system gradually breaks down into a condition of ‘‘normlessness’’ and a state
of anomie, and Durkheim noted that
There, the state of crisis and anomy is constant and, so to speak, normal.
From top to bottom of the ladder, greed is aroused without knowing
Sociological Theories of Crime and Delinquency 243
where to find ultimate foothold. Nothing can calm it, since its goal is
far beyond all it can attain. Reality seems valueless by comparison with
the dreams of fevered imaginations; reality is therefore abandoned, but
so too is possibility abandoned when it in turn becomes reality. A thirst
arises for the novelties, unfamiliar pleasures, nameless sensations, all of
which lose their savor once known. Henceforth one has no strength to
endure the least reverse. The whole fever subsides and the sterility of all
the tumult is apparent, and it is seen that all these new sensations in their
infinite quantity cannot form a solid foundation of happiness to support
one during days of trial (Durkheim, 1951, p. 256).
Slums and the Chicago School
Like Durkheim, the scholars at the University of Chicago and their theories
about the roots of crime in the 1920s were heavily influenced by the time
and place in which they were formed. Surrounded by a growing city and
exploding population of the urban poor, the Chicago School believed that the
causes of crime were primarily entrenched in one area of American society—
the city slums—and people became criminal by learning deviant cultural
norms and values (Short, 2002). Rejecting the social Darwinism of the time,
criminologists in the Chicago School rejected crime as a matter of individual
pathology; they viewed crime as a social problem in which the poor were
driven by their environment into a life of crime due to criminal values’ replacing
conventional ones and being transmitted from one generation to the next
(Short). The breakdown of social bonds, associations, and social controls in
families, neighborhoods, and communities resulted in what Chicago scholars
Thomas and Znaniecki (1958) termed ‘‘social disorganization.’’
Park and Burgess expanded the study of social disorganization by introducing
ecological analysis or the study of the interrelationships of people and
their environment. Park and Burgess (1936) studied the geographic locations
of high crime rates rather than criminals and developed the notion that
urban development is patterned socially and develops naturally in concentric
zones. Five zones were outlined, each with its own structure, organization,
and culture, spreading outward from a ‘‘central business district’’ toward the
‘‘commuters zone.’’ Notable among the zones was the ‘‘zone of transition’’
in which deteriorating housing, constant displacement of residents, and the
influx of immigrants weakened family and communal ties and resulted in
social disorganization, and later, crime (Park, 1936).
Cultural Transmission
Shaw and McKay (researchers at Chicago’s Institute for Juvenile Research)
expanded on the work of Park and Burgess and argued that the organization
of a neighborhood in a city was central in the prevention of delinquency
244 D. Zembroski
by demonstrating how urban growth distributes people and crime spatially
and how the crime rates differ among Chicago neighborhoods (Short, 2002).
Shaw and McKay (1972) confirmed that delinquency was highest in the zone
of transition and decreased within neighborhoods where increasing affluence
corresponded with the distance from the central business district. Also, the
highest rates of delinquency persisted over extended periods of time and
throughout the changes in the ethnic demographics within the community.
Shaw and McKay drew the conclusion that the nature of the neighborhood
and the economic status and cultural values of various neighborhood types
were crucial in the regulation of crime; ethnicity and the nature of the
individual within the neighborhood did not determine the likelihood of crime
(Shaw, Forbaugh, McKay, & Cottrell, 1929).
Shaw and McKay (1972) documented the cultural values and norms of
Chicago’s neighborhoods by interviewing thousands of juvenile delinquents,
and that led to the conclusion that older boys were associated with younger
boys in various offenses. More important, they concluded that disorganized
neighborhoods enabled ‘‘criminal traditions,’’ such as conventional values,
to be ‘‘transmitted down through successive generations of boys, much the
same way that language and other social forms are transmitted’’ (Shaw &
McKay, 1972, p. 174). This research led Shaw and McKay to formulate the
concept of cultural transmission in disorganized urban areas describing ‘‘the
existence of a coherent system of values supporting delinquent acts,’’ where
socially learned behaviors were transmitted from one generation to the next
(Shaw & McKay, p. 173).
Differential Association Theory
Sutherland and Cressey (1955) built on the Shaw and McKay observation
about the transmission of delinquent values from one generation to the
next whereby crime is learned through social interaction by noting the
importance of ‘‘differential social organization’’ to account for the observation
that social groups are arranged differently (some organized in support of
criminal activity and others organized against it). Sutherland advanced the
theory that criminal behavior is learned through social interactions wherein
opportunities that are favorable to the violation of the law differs from
opportunities that are unfavorable to violation of the law for someone who
embraces crime as an acceptable way of life (Sutherland & Cressey). Sutherland
(1949) described this theory as ‘‘differential association.’’
Sutherland (1949) maintained that his theories of differential association
and differential social organization were compatible and together formed a
comprehensive explanation of crime. Differential association explained why
any given individual was drawn into crime; differential social disorganization
explained why rates of crime were higher in certain sectors of American
society. Deviance was the result of socialization and learning values of a
Sociological Theories of Crime and Delinquency 245
subculture that supports attitudes and behaviors that the mainstream culture
rejects (Sutherland & Cressey, 1955). Most provocatively, Sutherland’s theory
applied to all strata of society and was able to account for the offenses
‘‘committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course
of his occupation’’ (1949, p. 9). In describing crimes committed in the areas
of business, politics, and the professions, Sutherland coined the term whitecollar
crime.
Anomie Revisited
Merton (1968) rejected the view that crime emanated from city slums and
learned deviant cultural values. Instead, he noted that conformity to conventional
cultural values produced high rates of crime and deviance. Merton
agreed with Durkheim’s view that the biological perspective provided inadequate
explanations on deviance and that when institutionalized norms
weaken and anomie takes hold in societies by placing an intense value on
economic success, it became clear that anomie was not created by sudden social
change (Lilly et al., 1989). Merton posited that social structural conditions
should be considered as factors that induce deviance. Social systems hold the
same goals for all people without giving the same people the equal means to
achieve them. According to Merton, when this occurs, standards of right and
wrong are no longer applicable, and it is necessary to determine ‘‘which of
the available procedures is most efficient in netting the culturally approved
value?’’ (Merton, p. 189) The state of anomie results in ‘‘a literal demoralization,
i.e., a de-institutionalization of the means’’ (Merton, p. 190) that is a
result of ‘‘the acute pressures created by the discrepancy between culturally
induced goals and socially structured opportunities’’ (Merton, p. 232).
Strain Theory
Against the backdrop of the macro-state of anomie, Merton analyzed the
individual patterns and means to achieve society’s set goals during anomic
conditions by identifying five types of adjustment. Merton (1968, p. 194)
refers to these five types of adjustment to anomic conditions as ‘‘modes of
individual adaptation’’: conformity, the most common mode, the acceptance
of both cultural goals and institutionalized means; retreatism, a deviant alternative
that rejects the goals and means of society; rebellion, an uncommon
deviant alternative that rejects and actively substitutes the goals and means
of society; ritualism, the means to legitimately guarantee that the cultural
goals are respected even though the goals themselves are not realistic; and
innovation, a form of acceptance of the goals but rejection of the means.
Innovation has received the most scholarly attention in the study of
crime and delinquency, and Merton (1968) describes innovation as the way
246 D. Zembroski
of defining most criminal behavior. In this way, the bulk of criminal behavior
would be seen as the condition that ‘‘occurs when the individual
has assimilated the cultural emphasis : : : without equally internalizing the
institutional norms governing ways and means for its attainment’’ (Merton,
p. 195). Such criminal behavior and corresponding differentiation among
modes of adaption is not uniform across society; Merton felt that ‘‘the absence
of realistic opportunities for advancement : : : results in the greatest pressures
towards deviation exerted upon the lower strata’’ (pp. 198–199).
It is important to understand the differences between anomie and the
structural situation of blocked opportunities that can lead to corresponding
modes of adaptation, such as innovation (Featherstone & Deflem, 2003). In
essence, anomie occurs when society emphasizes achievement or culturally
prescribed goals without addressing the approved norms that regulate the
means to achieve those goals. Strain theory provides an explanation of
how anomie results in deviance that reflects different modes of individual
adaptation (Featherstone & Deflem). According to Merton (1968), the relationship
between anomie and strain theory can be seen in the following
observation, ‘‘A cardinal American virtue [is] ‘ambition’ [and it] promotes a
cardinal American vice [of] ‘deviant behavior’’’ (p. 200).
Delinquent Subcultures
Sutherland’s differential association theory and Merton’s strain theory were
consolidated and expanded by Cohen (1955) to explain how delinquent
subcultures arise, where they are located within the social structure, and how
they can be defined. Cohen noted that the subcultures emerge primarily in
urban slum areas that support crime that is ‘‘non-utilitarian, malicious, and
negativistic’’ and often committed ‘‘for the hell of it’’ (pp. 25–26). He noted
that the roots of delinquent subcultures lie in the class differences in parental
aspirations, child-rearing practices, and classroom expectations.
Lower-class youths are drawn toward delinquent subcultures and gangs
often as a result of being ‘‘denied status in the respectable society because
they cannot meet the criteria of the respectable status system’’ (Cohen, 1955,
p. 121). More important, the lower the position of a child’s family in the
social structure, the higher the amount of problems that the child will most
likely encounter later in life. For instance, lower-class families may not have
access to the socialization patterns, values, and education of the middle class.
Cohen speaks of delinquent youths as coming from unfortunate backgrounds
and embracing values that provide both the chance to gain the status and
the satisfaction of rejecting respectable (middle-class) values that lie outside
their reach. Moreover, delinquent subcultures reflect a ‘‘reaction formation’’
to establish ‘‘criteria of status which these children can meet’’ (Cohen, pp.
121, 133). This process includes rejecting the middle-class goals and norms
that they have been taught to desire (by which they are judged inadequate)
Sociological Theories of Crime and Delinquency 247
and replacing those middle-class standards with a set of oppositional values
to gain status, respect, and worth (Shoemaker, 1996). Last, these subcultures
can be transmitted across generations as a result of continuous discontent
with one’s status and the lure of alternative forms of attainable values, worth,
and success (Cohen).
Opportunity Theory
Like Cohen, Cloward and Ohlin were former students of Merton and Sutherland,
respectively, and thus incorporated and expanded on both differential
association theory and strain theory. Cloward and Ohlin (1960) built on the
work of Merton and Cohen by advancing the idea that youths in slum areas
lacked the legitimate means and opportunities to be successful and acquire
status. They also expanded on Sutherland’s work on cultural transmission
and concluded that criminal behavior depended upon access to requisite
illegitimate means. However, unlike Cohen who stated that delinquent subcultures
take on values that are oppositional to those of the main culture,
Cloward and Ohlin suggested that lower-class delinquents are proactive and
goal-oriented by seizing available opportunities even though most of them
are illegitimate.
According to Cloward and Ohlin’s (1960) opportunity theory, delinquent
subcultures emerge and persist in lower-class areas where there are enough
youths to band together and support one another against their remoteness
and estrangement from conventional values, in pursuit of illegitimate opportunities
that exceed the number of legitimate opportunities for success.
As illegitimate opportunities for success are distributed through society as
unevenly as the legitimate opportunities for success, the types of delinquent
subcultures are determined by the type of neighborhood and illegitimate
opportunities available (Shoemaker, 1996). Shoemaker states that neighborhoods
that are stable and share conventional and unconventional systems are
marked by criminal/theft gangs; neighborhoods characterized by transience,
instability, and an absence of criminal organizations are marked by conflict/violent
gangs; and neighborhoods that could be either type but wherein
members have not been successful in both the legitimate and illegitimate
worlds are marked by retreatist/drug-user gangs.
Social Control Theories
Among the multiple theories of social control, the one developed by Hirschi,
beginning in his 1969 seminal book on the causes of delinquency, is highly
influential. In his critique of various social theories and the development of
his own theory rooted in the historical and turbulent times of the 1960s (Lilly
et al., 1989), Hirschi challenged the school of strain theory related to anomie
and the breakdown of social ties by suggesting that ‘‘Durkheim’s theory
248 D. Zembroski
is one of the purest examples of control theory: both anomie and egoism
are conditions of ‘deregulation’ and the ‘aberrant’ behavior that follows is
an automatic consequence’’ (1969, p. 3). In contrast to previous control
theorists who focused on an individual’s incentive to commit delinquent
acts, Hirschi explored the reasons why people did not engage in criminal
behavior and what explained conformity and adherence to rules (Gottfredson
& Hirschi, 1990). In contrast to an emphasis on internal factors and related
to personality, he addressed external factors related to sustaining social
relationships, that he called ‘‘social bonds’’ (1969, p. 17).
Hirschi (1969) identified four social bonds to explain conformity—
attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief—that are external in
nature and tie people to conventional society wherein these bonds involve
conventional activities, behavior, and conduct (Hirschi). First, the attachment
bond relates to family, school, and peers. For families, the strength of the
bond between parent and child is seen as the main deterrent to delinquent
behavior and the mechanism for inculcating conventional norms and values.
For the school, the ability to perform well in school is linked to delinquency
such that poor academic performance begins a chain of disrespect for the
school, teachers, staff and, later, authority as a whole. For peers, loyalty and
solidarity are important characteristics of delinquent behaviors and personal
sacrifice for the ‘‘requirements of the group’’ (Hirschi, 1969, p. 145). Second,
commitment is the degree to which the individual’s self-interest in a set
of activities connects the individual to society’s moral code. Conventional
aspirations, such as those relating to employment or education, are viewed
as ‘‘constraints on delinquency’’ and ‘‘stakes in conformity’’ in that the
greater the aspiration and personal investment, the greater the tie to the
conventional social order and the less likely the involvement in delinquent
activities (Hirschi, p. 162). Third, involvement relates to the amount of time
and energy devoted to a particular set of activities, such as homework that
reflects the values of conventional society. Fourth, belief is the degree of
approval and consent to certain values and norms of a society. Beliefs are
moral positions that need constant social reinforcement; in essence, the less
people believe that laws are just, the more likely the interest in delinquent
behavior. When considering all the bonds in relationship to deviant behavior,
Hirschi pointed out that ‘‘The chain of causation is thus from attachment
to parents, through concern for the approval of persons in positions of
authority, to belief that the rules of society are binding on one’s conduct’’
(p. 200).
Conflict Theory
Conflict theorists sought new ways to view crime in reaction to the social
and political turmoil of the 1960s and the inability of such phenomena to be
adequately explained by existing theories (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2001). As
Sociological Theories of Crime and Delinquency 249
such, conflict theory questions traditional values and views laws as existing
to maintain the interests of specific groups who hold political power. Conflict
theory is primarily concerned with the concept of power and has its roots in
rebellion, class conflict, and the philosophy of Marxism (Shoemaker, 1990).
The theoretical foundation of conflict theory was laid down by Marx and
his philosophies regarding the vast differences in power between groups, the
conflicts inherent in the social arrangement between groups under capitalism,
and the violent confrontations between social classes (Marx, Engels, &
Struik, 1971). Like Durkheim, Marx (1848) viewed crime as a symptom of
social decline and the political state as a mechanism for the perpetuation of
capitalism, which was at the root of crime. As Turner (1975) explains, the
basic assumptions of Marx’s theoretical approach can be stated broadly in
six conceptual stages:
1. Although social systems reveal interdependence of certain units and
groups, these interrelations always reveal conflicts of interest.
2. These conflicts of interest are the result of the unequal distribution of
scarce resources, particularly power. Such distributions of resources and
conflicts exist in all societies.
3. Latent conflicts of interest will eventually lead to overt and violent conflict
among social groups in a system.
4. These conflicts will eventually lead to the dominant and subjugated segments
of a system’s becoming polarized.
5. The more polarized the dominant and subjugated, the more violent the
ensuing conflict will be. The more violent the conflict, the greater will
be the structural change of the system and the redistribution of scarce
resources.
6. This reorganization once again creates conditions of conflicting interest
between the new dominant and subjugated classes, which will set into
motion the inevitable processes of class conflict, polarization, violence,
and system reorganization.
Crime is a product of conflicts over the distribution of resources and the
illegitimacy of such a distribution, especially as it impacts the poor and the
groups that seek to organize and bring conflict out into the open (Turner,
1975).
After Marx, the first sociologist to view crime through a conflict theory
lens was Vold. Vold (1958) viewed crime as natural in that individuals express
their loyalty to a group through conflict; loyalty to a group is beneficial
because through collective action groups successfully enable an individual’s
needs to be met. An effective group survives because it serves its members’
needs; if not, new groups will form to more effectively address and serve
the same needs. Due to the multitude of groups in a complex society, it
was logical that it would be common for interests to clash as individuals
250 D. Zembroski
advocated and fought for the interests of their particular group above all
others. In effect, this created a constant state of conflict but one in which ‘‘the
continuing ongoing of society depends’’ (Vold, p. 204). Vold viewed conflict
as necessary to create a balance of power among conflicting forces that comprise
society. As he noted, ‘‘through varying kinds of uneasy adjustment to a
more or less stable equilibrium of balanced forces in opposition, the resulting
condition of relative stability is what is usually called social order or social
organization’’ (p. 204). Vold used such logic to view legal compromises,
political arrests, and conflicts between union and management as criminal
acts committed by those who have the power and control in society.
Dahrendorf expanded on Vold’s stance that not only does conflict between
groups ensure social order but enforced constraint between groups
binds people together (Adler et al., 2001). Dahrendorf (1959) states that because
cultural norms always exist and are dependent upon sanctions for their
adherence, certain people and therefore groups must have more power and
authority than others to enforce such norms. Dahrendorf viewed conflict and
class inequality as natural and inescapable facets of society as the basic unit
of society involves dominance-subjection relationships (Shoemaker, 1996).
Dahrendorf claimed that social inequities, social conflicts, and coercion are
constant; over time, conflict leads to social change whereby the breakdown
of the old social structure ushers in a new social order.
And finally, the contemporary conflict theorist Turk embraced social
conflict as a basic fact of life and expanded on the theoretical contributions
of Vold and Dahrendorf by demonstrating how those persons with power
create laws and exercise authority to maintain their hold on power. Turk
(1969) claimed that crime was not a result of conflict arising from groups
vying for power but rather criminally defined behavior being ascribed to the
lower status groups by those with power and authority. Crime should not be
understood as ‘‘a biological, psychological, or even behavioral phenomenon,
but a social status defined by the way in which an individual is perceived,
evaluated, and treated by legal authorities’’ (Turk, 1969, p. 25). Criminal
status is defined by those with power (the ‘‘authorities’’) and imposed on
those without power (the ‘‘subjects’’; Turk). Relating back to Dahrendorf’s
work and the conflict of the subordinate class against the authorities, ‘‘lawbreaking,
then, becomes a measure of the stability of the ruler/ruled relationship’’
(Turk, p. 42). Therefore, the frequency of certain crimes, the degrees
to which laws are enforced, and the populations frequently affected by these
laws all reflect the struggle for power in society and how the power balance
is continually changing.
Developmental Life Course Theories
Developmental life course theories are concerned with the development
of offending and antisocial behavior, risk factors at different ages, and the
Sociological Theories of Crime and Delinquency 251
effects of life events on the course of development (Adler et al., 2001). As
opposed to the crime paradigms detailed earlier, developmental life course
theories are especially concerned with understanding individual changes in
criminal behavior throughout the life span, especially the ways in which
risk factors and life events interact with one another to influence the onset,
continuation, and desistance of crime (Farrington, 2002).
There are at least five prevailing developmental life course theories:
integrated cognitive antisocial potential theory (Farrington, 2002); social development
model (Hawkins, 1996); two qualitatively distinct categories of
antisocial people (life course persistent and adolescence-limited offenders;
Moffitt, 1993); integrative control theory (LeBlanc, 1997); and interactional
theory (Thornberry & Krohns, 2001). Although each theory varies in relationship
to personal, environmental, and social constructs, the 10 most widely
accepted conclusions that each theory needs to be able to explain include
the following (Farrrington):
1. The prevalence of offending peaks in the late teenage years (between
ages 15 and 19).
2. The peak age of onset of offending is between 8 and 14, and the peak
age of desistance is between 20 and 29.
3. An early age of onset predicts relatively long criminal career duration
and the commitment of multiple offenses.
4. A marked continuity is seen in offending and antisocial behavior from
childhood to adolescence to adulthood.
5. A small fraction of the population commits a large fraction of all crimes.
6. Offending is versatile rather than specialized.
7. The types of acts defined as offenses are elements of a larger syndrome
of antisocial behaviors (e.g., heavy drinking, reckless driving, sexual
promiscuity, bullying, and/or truancy).
8. Most offenses up to the late teenage years are committed with others,
whereas most offenses from age 20 onward are committed alone.
9. The reasons given for offending up to the late teenage years are quite
variable (e.g., excitement, enjoyment, or anger).
10. Different types of first-time offenses tend to be committed at distinctively
different ages.
CONCLUSION
An understanding of the sociological theories of crime and delinquency can
be viewed as resting on three pillars: the theory of anomie, the Chicago
School, and conflict theory as illustrated in Figure 1. The theory of anomie
refers to the breakdown of norms and moral order in a society caused by the
increasing division of labor and individualism that contributed to criminal
252 D. Zembroski
FIGURE 1 Conceptual map of sociological theories of crime and delinquency.
behaviors. By reviewing crime and delinquency within the context of the
physical characteristics, cultural norms, and practices of neighborhoods (the
Chicago School), residents engage in crime as a result of the lack of legitimate
opportunities for success and socialization into criminal cultures. Conflict
theory suggests that crime is not the result of a breakdown in society but
rather a constant and perpetual struggle between those who have power
and authority and those who do not. Conflict theory is used to explain
crime by emphasizing the importance of conflict in maintaining social order
and assisting with the groups in power in maintaining control over criminal
behavior.
From these beginnings, control theories grew out of theories of anomie
to explain why people chose not to conform during periods of alienation
and engage in criminal acts by not obeying the rules of conventional society.
Based on theories of anomie, theories of social structure and strain
placed the breakdown of societal norms within the context of a lack of
legitimate opportunities in one’s community, where crime emerges due to
the lack of access to the legitimate means to acquiring the values and goals
set by mainstream society. These theories led to theories about delinquent
subcultures and how they transmit criminal values through generations to
sustain their cultures and to opportunity theory, whereby people in impoverished
neighborhoods gained status and respect through acquiring and
Sociological Theories of Crime and Delinquency 253
utilizing the illegitimate means most available to them. Finally, developmental
life course theories seek to incorporate the social environment elements
of risk factors, neighborhood effects, and the ratio of legitimate and
illegitimate opportunities with the human behavior factors related to life
events.
In reflection on the array of sociological theories of crime and delinquency,
it is important to keep in mind that theories are shaped by the life
experiences and the assumptions and worldviews of the theorists. Because
life experiences change as society changes, theoretical views about crime
also change. As the times and the social context change, previous theories
lose their appeal, and other theories start to appear more relevant. Furthermore,
everyone’s understanding about crime is conditioned by personal
social experiences. Given that theories are shaped by the world in which
theorists live, our own interpretation of these theories when applied, explained,
and combined together can help to explain contemporary criminal
and delinquent activities and behaviors.
REFERENCES
Adler, F., Mueller, G. O. W., & Laufer, W. S. (2001). Criminology (4th ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Clinard, M. B., & American Sociological Association. (1964). Anomie and deviant
behavior: A discussion and critique. New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.
Clinard, M. B., & Meier, R. F. (1968). Sociology of deviant behavior. Florence, KY:
Wadsworth Publishing.
Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity; A theory of
delinquent gangs. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. Glencoe, IL: Free
Press.
Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide. New York, NY: Free Press.
Durkheim, E. (1964). The division of labor in society. New York, NY: Free Press.
Farrington, D. P. (2002). Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical
and empirical issues. Criminology, 41(2), 221–256.
Featherstone, R., & Deflem, M. (2003). Anomie and strain: Context and consequences
of Merton’s two theories. Sociological Inquiry, 73(4), 471–489.
Gelles, R. J., & Levine, A. (1999). Sociology: An introduction (6th ed.). New York,
NY: McGraw Hill.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Hawkins, J. D. (Ed.) (1996). Delinquency and crime: Current theories. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
254 D. Zembroski
LeBlanc, M. (1997). A generic control theory of the criminal phenomenon: The
structural and dynamic statements of an integrative multilayered control theory.
In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.), Developmental theories of crime and delinquency
(pp. 215–285). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (1989). Criminological theory: Context and
consequences. Belmont, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Marx, K. (1848, 1932). The communist manifesto. New York, NY: International
Publishers.
Marx, K., Engels, F., & Struik, D. J. (1971). Birth of the communist manifesto, with
full text of the manifesto, all prefaces by Marx and Engels, early drafts by Engels
and other supplementary material. New York, NY: International Publishers.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: Free Press.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior:
A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.
Park, R. E., & Burgess, R. (1936). Human ecology. American Journal of Sociology,
42, 1–15.
Shaw, C. R., Forbaugh, F. M., McKay, H. D., & Cottrell, L. S. (1929). Delinquency
areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1972). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Shoemaker, D. J. (1990). Theories of delinquency (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Short, J. F., Jr. (2002). Criminology, the Chicago school, and sociological theory.
Crime, Law and Social Change, 37(2), 107–115.
Sutherland, E. H. (1949). White collar crime. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (1955). Principles of criminology. Philadelphia,
PA: Lippincott.
Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1958). The Polish peasant in Europe and America.
New York, NY: Dover.
Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2001) The development of delinquency: An
interactional perspective. In S. O. White (Ed.), Handbook of law and social
science: Youth and justice (pp. 289–305). New York, NY: Plenum.
Tonry, M. H. (1998). The handbook of crime & punishment. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Turk, A. T. (1969). Criminality and legal order. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Turner, J. H. (1975). Marx and Simmel revisited: Reassessing the foundations of
conflict theory. Social Forces, 53(4), 618–627.
Vold, G. B. (1958). Theoretical criminology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Wright, R. A., & Miller, J. M. (2005). Encyclopedia of criminology. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Copyright of Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.