Criminology Subfields and Specializations

Criminology subfields and specializations represent the diverse intellectual territory that scholars and practitioners occupy within the scientific study of crime. As a foundational dimension of Criminology Education, the mapping of these subfields helps students, researchers, and policymakers understand how the discipline organizes its knowledge production and where emerging areas of inquiry are concentrated. Criminology’s evolution from a relatively narrow focus on individual criminal pathology into a multidimensional science spanning biological, psychological, sociological, legal, spatial, and computational approaches has generated a complex landscape of specializations, each with its own theoretical commitments, methodological conventions, flagship journals, and professional networks. Situated within the broader intellectual enterprise of Criminology, these subfields are not hermetically sealed categories; their boundaries are porous, their practitioners frequently collaborate across lines, and their most productive work often occurs at the intersections.

Introduction

Criminology has never been a monolithic discipline. From its nineteenth-century origins in the biological positivism of Cesare Lombroso and the social statistics of Adolphe Quetelet, the field has expanded through successive waves of theoretical innovation and methodological diversification. By the mid-twentieth century, American criminology had established itself primarily within sociology departments, but its subject matter drew continuously on psychology, economics, political science, geography, and law (Laub, 2004). The result has been a discipline whose internal structure resembles less a single trunk than a canopy — many branches sharing a common root concern with crime and justice but diverging substantially in their questions, methods, and practical applications.

Mapping these subfields serves several purposes. For undergraduate and graduate students choosing areas of concentration, a clear picture of what each specialization entails — its core questions, its canonical texts, its career implications — is indispensable for informed academic planning. For faculty designing curricula, the subfield landscape determines which courses to offer, which methodological sequences to require, and which interdisciplinary partnerships to cultivate. For funding agencies and policy organizations, understanding specialization boundaries clarifies which researchers possess the expertise relevant to particular crime problems. The taxonomy presented here is necessarily simplified; in practice, many criminologists work across multiple subfields simultaneously, and new specializations continue to emerge as crime itself evolves.

The discussion that follows organizes criminological subfields into six broad clusters: theoretical and etiological criminology, applied and policy-oriented criminology, criminal justice studies, victimology and victim services, critical and interdisciplinary approaches, and emerging and technology-driven specializations. Within each cluster, the treatment identifies core concerns, representative scholars, and methodological tendencies without attempting an exhaustive survey of any single area.

Theoretical and Etiological Criminology

Classical, Positivist, and Developmental Frameworks

The oldest and most conceptually central cluster of criminological specialization is the study of crime causation — the effort to explain why criminal behavior occurs, why it concentrates in certain populations and places, and why individuals begin, persist in, and desist from offending. Theoretical criminology encompasses an extraordinary range of explanatory frameworks, from classical deterrence theory rooted in the Enlightenment writings of Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham to contemporary biosocial models that integrate genetic, neurological, and environmental influences (Cullen, Agnew, & Wilcox, 2014). No single theory dominates the field, and the productive tension among competing perspectives is one of criminology’s defining intellectual characteristics.

Developmental and life-course criminology has emerged as one of the field’s most empirically productive specializations since the 1990s. Terrie Moffitt’s (1993) dual taxonomy, Robert Sampson and John Laub’s (1993) age-graded theory, and David Farrington’s longitudinal research through the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development have generated a body of findings about criminal onset, persistence, and desistance that ranks among the strongest in the social and behavioral sciences. These scholars study how risk and protective factors accumulate across developmental stages, how turning points such as marriage, employment, and military service redirect criminal trajectories, and how early childhood experiences create or foreclose pathways into chronic offending. The methodological signature of this subfield is the longitudinal cohort study, often spanning decades and requiring sustained institutional investment.

Biosocial criminology, a newer and more contested specialization, examines the interplay between biological factors — genetics, neurology, hormones, prenatal exposures — and social environments in producing criminal behavior. Twin and adoption studies have consistently shown that genetic influences account for a meaningful portion of the variance in antisocial behavior, though estimates vary across study designs and populations (Raine, 2013). Neuroimaging research has identified structural and functional differences in the prefrontal cortex and amygdala associated with persistent offending. This subfield operates at the intersection of criminology, behavioral genetics, and neuroscience, and its findings carry significant implications for criminal responsibility, sentencing, and rehabilitative intervention — along with ethical concerns about biological reductionism and racial misapplication that its practitioners must address directly.

Social Structural and Cultural Theories

A second major strand of theoretical criminology locates the causes of crime not in individual differences but in the structural features of communities and societies. Social disorganization theory, originating in the Chicago School research of Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, identifies neighborhood-level poverty, residential instability, and ethnic heterogeneity as the structural antecedents of weakened informal social control and elevated crime rates. Robert Sampson’s (2012) concept of collective efficacy — the combination of social cohesion and shared willingness to intervene on behalf of the common good — has refined and revitalized this tradition, providing a mechanism through which structural conditions translate into behavioral outcomes. Scholars in this subfield rely heavily on multilevel statistical models, census data, and community surveys to disentangle individual-level and neighborhood-level effects.

Strain theories, from Robert Merton’s (1938) anomie framework through Robert Agnew’s (1992) general strain theory, constitute another major specialization within etiological criminology. Agnew’s formulation broadened the concept of strain beyond blocked economic opportunity to include the removal of positively valued stimuli and the presentation of noxious stimuli, identifying negative emotions — particularly anger and frustration — as the proximate mechanism linking strain to criminal coping. Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld’s (2013) institutional anomie theory extended the analysis to the macro level, arguing that the dominance of economic institutions over family, education, and polity in American society weakens non-economic sources of social control and produces elevated crime rates. These frameworks have been tested cross-nationally and have informed prevention programs targeting economic disadvantage, educational opportunity, and emotional regulation.

Cultural criminology represents a more recent and methodologically distinctive specialization that examines the meanings, emotions, and symbolic dimensions of crime and crime control. Jeff Ferrell, Keith Hayward, and Jock Young (2008) have argued that conventional criminology neglects the lived experience of transgression — the excitement, the risk, the aesthetic dimensions of deviance — and the cultural processes through which crime is constructed, represented, and consumed in media and popular culture. Ethnographic methods, visual analysis, and media criticism are the characteristic tools of this subfield, which shares intellectual territory with cultural studies, media theory, and the sociology of emotions. Cultural criminologists have studied phenomena ranging from graffiti subcultures and urban exploration to the spectacularization of crime in reality television and true-crime podcasting.

Applied and Policy-Oriented Criminology

Evidence-Based Crime Prevention

Applied criminology translates theoretical knowledge and empirical findings into practical strategies for preventing crime and improving justice system operations. This specialization has gained substantial institutional support since the 1990s, driven by the evidence-based policy movement and the recognition that criminal justice spending should be guided by rigorous evaluation rather than political intuition or ideological preference. Lawrence Sherman’s (1998) landmark report to Congress — Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising — established a framework for evaluating crime prevention programs according to the strength of their evidence base and remains a touchstone for the field.

The Campbell Collaboration’s Crime and Justice Coordinating Group produces systematic reviews and meta-analyses of criminal justice interventions, synthesizing evidence across multiple studies to identify what works, for whom, and under what conditions (Farrington & Welsh, 2005). Hot spots policing, cognitive-behavioral therapy for offenders, nurse-family partnerships, and multisystemic therapy for juvenile offenders are among the interventions that have accumulated strong evidence of effectiveness through this process. Problem-oriented policing, which requires officers to analyze the underlying conditions that generate recurring crime problems rather than merely responding to individual incidents, has also shown positive results across multiple evaluations (Weisburd, Telep, Hinkle, & Eck, 2010).

Situational crime prevention constitutes a distinctive applied specialization focused on reducing criminal opportunity rather than reforming offender motivation. Ronald Clarke’s (1997) classification of 25 techniques — organized around increasing effort, increasing risks, reducing rewards, reducing provocations, and removing excuses — provides a systematic framework for designing out crime from specific settings and situations. This approach has been applied to problems as diverse as convenience store robbery, subway graffiti, credit card fraud, and wildlife poaching. Its intellectual roots lie in rational choice theory and routine activities theory, and its methodological signature is the before-and-after evaluation of specific interventions at specific locations, with careful attention to displacement effects.

Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry

Correctional criminology encompasses the study of incarceration, community supervision, and rehabilitative programming. The Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model developed by Don Andrews and James Bonta (2010) has become the dominant framework for evidence-based correctional practice, specifying that interventions should target higher-risk individuals, address criminogenic needs (antisocial cognition, antisocial associates, substance abuse, family dysfunction, and others), and match service delivery to offenders’ learning styles and capabilities. Meta-analytic evidence consistently shows that programs adhering to RNR principles reduce recidivism by 15 to 35 percent relative to comparison conditions, while programs violating these principles sometimes increase reoffending.

Reentry research has grown into a substantial specialization driven by the practical reality that more than 600,000 individuals leave American prisons annually. Joan Petersilia (2003) and Jeremy Travis (2005) helped establish reentry as a distinct research area by documenting the barriers — housing instability, employment discrimination, family disruption, untreated behavioral health conditions — that undermine successful community reintegration. Scholars in this subfield conduct program evaluations, analyze administrative data on post-release outcomes, and develop risk assessment instruments to guide supervision decisions. The Second Chance Act of 2007 and subsequent federal funding initiatives have created institutional infrastructure for reentry research and programming that did not exist a generation earlier.

Criminal Justice Studies

Policing and Court Processing

Criminal justice studies — the empirical examination of the institutions that detect, adjudicate, and sanction criminal behavior — constitutes a cluster of specializations that overlaps with but is conceptually distinct from theoretical criminology. The study of policing is among the most active subfields in American criminology, encompassing research on patrol strategies, use of force, police culture, officer decision-making, accountability mechanisms, and police-community relations. The procedural justice framework, anchored in Tom Tyler’s (1990, 2006) research on perceived fairness and legitimacy, has profoundly influenced both scholarly analysis and police training programs. Experimental evaluations of body-worn cameras, de-escalation training, and early intervention systems for officers generating excessive complaints represent current frontiers in this specialization.

The study of courts and sentencing examines how cases move through the adjudicatory process and how punishment decisions are made. Cassia Spohn’s (2014) research on racial and ethnic disparities in prosecution and sentencing, Darrell Steffensmeier and Stephen Demuth’s (2006) work on the intersection of race, ethnicity, and gender in sentencing outcomes, and Jeffery Ulmer’s analyses of local legal culture have revealed that the formal rationality of sentencing guidelines coexists with substantial discretionary variation across jurisdictions, courtroom workgroups, and individual judges. Problem-solving courts — drug courts, mental health courts, domestic violence courts, and veterans treatment courts — represent an institutional innovation whose effectiveness criminologists have evaluated through dozens of randomized and quasi-experimental studies, with drug courts showing the most consistently positive results.

Juvenile Justice

Juvenile justice constitutes a distinct specialization with its own institutional history, legal framework, and research community. The juvenile court, established in Cook County, Illinois, in 1899, was founded on the premise that children who offend require treatment and rehabilitation rather than punishment — a philosophy encoded in the legal concept of parens patriae. Contemporary juvenile justice research examines the effectiveness of diversion programs, the consequences of transferring juveniles to adult court, the developmental appropriateness of various sanctions, and the racial disparities that pervade every stage of juvenile processing (Feld, 2017). The MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change initiative and the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative have provided institutional platforms for research-practice partnerships that have measurably reduced juvenile incarceration in participating jurisdictions.

Adolescent brain development research has become increasingly influential in juvenile justice policy and law. Neuroscientific evidence that the prefrontal cortex — the brain region associated with impulse control, future orientation, and decision-making — does not fully mature until the mid-twenties was cited in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Roper v. Simmons (2005), Graham v. Florida (2010), and Miller v. Alabama (2012), which progressively restricted the most severe sentences for juvenile offenders. Laurence Steinberg’s (2008) work on psychosocial maturity and criminal culpability has bridged developmental psychology and legal scholarship, providing a scientific basis for the argument that adolescents are categorically less culpable than adults and more amenable to rehabilitation.

Victimology and Victim-Centered Specializations

Victimization Patterns and Consequences

Victimology — the scientific study of crime victims, their experiences, and the societal response to their needs — has evolved from a marginal curiosity into a well-established criminological specialization with dedicated journals, professional organizations, and degree programs. Early victimological work, associated with Benjamin Mendelsohn and Hans von Hentig, focused controversially on victim typologies and the concept of victim precipitation, an approach largely abandoned as it risked blaming victims for their own suffering. Contemporary victimology examines the epidemiology of victimization, the physical and psychological consequences of criminal harm, the effectiveness of victim services, and the role of victims in criminal justice proceedings (Daigle, 2018).

The National Crime Victimization Survey provides the primary data infrastructure for victimization research in the United States, supplemented by specialized instruments such as the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey and the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. Scholars in this subfield have documented the concentration of victimization risk among disadvantaged populations, the phenomenon of poly-victimization — exposure to multiple types of victimization across domains — and the long-term health consequences of violent victimization, including elevated rates of post-traumatic stress, depression, substance use, and chronic physical illness (Finkelhor, Turner, Hamby, & Ormrod, 2011). David Finkelhor’s developmental victimology framework has been particularly influential in establishing that childhood victimization is a risk factor not only for subsequent victimization but for offending, mental health problems, and educational failure.

Restorative Justice and Victim Advocacy

Restorative justice represents a specialization at the intersection of victimology and applied criminology, centering the needs of victims in the justice process through structured dialogue between victims, offenders, and community members. John Braithwaite’s (1989) theory of reintegrative shaming provided a theoretical foundation, while Howard Zehr’s (1990) concept of restorative justice as a paradigm shift away from retributive models provided a programmatic vocabulary. Victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing, and community reparative boards are the primary modalities studied in this specialization, with meta-analytic evidence suggesting benefits for victim satisfaction, restitution completion, and modest recidivism reduction (Sherman & Strang, 2007).

Critical and Interdisciplinary Approaches

Feminist, Critical Race, and Marxist Criminology

Critical criminology encompasses a cluster of theoretically driven specializations united by the conviction that crime and criminal justice cannot be understood apart from the power structures — capitalism, patriarchy, racial hierarchy — that shape social life. Marxist and radical criminology, associated with scholars such as Richard Quinney, William Chambliss, and Ian Taylor, examines how the criminal law serves the interests of dominant classes and how the criminal justice system reproduces economic inequality (DeKeseredy, 2011). This tradition has generated influential analyses of corporate crime, state crime, and the political economy of punishment, arguing that the harms inflicted by powerful actors — wage theft, environmental contamination, financial fraud — receive systematically less criminological attention and legal sanction than the street crimes of the poor.

Feminist criminology has transformed the discipline by demonstrating that gender is not merely a variable to be controlled but a fundamental organizing principle of both criminal behavior and criminal justice processing. Meda Chesney-Lind’s (1989) work on the criminalization of girls’ survival strategies, Kathleen Daly’s (1994) research on gender and sentencing, and Claire Renzetti’s studies of same-sex intimate partner violence exemplify the range of this specialization. Feminist scholars have documented the pathways through which sexual abuse, intimate partner violence, homelessness, and substance use channel women into the criminal justice system, and they have advocated for gender-responsive programming that addresses these gendered pathways rather than applying interventions designed for male offenders.

Critical race criminology examines how racial formation, systemic racism, and racialized social control shape patterns of crime, victimization, and punishment. Michelle Alexander’s (2010) The New Jim Crow brought mass incarceration’s racial dimensions to broad public attention, while scholarly work by Michael Tonry (2011), Khalil Gibran Muhammad (2010), and Ruth Peterson and Lauren Krivo (2010) has provided more granular empirical analysis of how racial residential segregation, concentrated disadvantage, and discriminatory justice processing interact to produce the racial disparities that characterize American criminal justice. This specialization engages with but is not reducible to the broader critical race theory tradition in legal scholarship, maintaining its own empirical methods and policy prescriptions.

Green Criminology and Comparative Approaches

Green criminology examines environmental harm through a criminological lens, extending the discipline’s focus beyond conventional street and white-collar crime to encompass pollution, illegal resource extraction, wildlife trafficking, corporate environmental destruction, and climate-related injustice. Nigel South and Rob White have been instrumental in establishing this specialization, arguing that environmental harms — whether or not criminalized — produce suffering and social injury on a scale that dwarfs most conventional crime categories (White, 2011). The challenge for green criminologists lies partly in the fact that many of the harms they study are not defined as criminal under existing law, requiring engagement with the concept of social harm and the zemiology tradition that questions whether the criminal law should be the primary frame for understanding injustice.

Comparative and international criminology examines crime and justice systems across national boundaries, seeking to identify how different legal traditions, political structures, economic conditions, and cultural frameworks produce different patterns of offending and institutional response. This specialization includes both cross-national quantitative research — comparing incarceration rates, homicide rates, or drug policy outcomes across countries — and qualitative case studies of particular justice systems. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, and the International Crime Victims Survey provide key data infrastructure. For American criminologists, comparative work offers critical perspective on the exceptionalism of U.S. criminal justice — its uniquely high incarceration rate, its retention of capital punishment among liberal democracies, and its distinctive patterns of gun violence (Tonry, 2015).

Emerging and Technology-Driven Specializations

Cybercrime and Digital Criminology

The rapid expansion of internet-mediated social and economic life has generated a cluster of new criminological specializations focused on technology-enabled offending and digital dimensions of crime control. Cybercrime research examines offenses that depend on or are substantially facilitated by computer networks — identity theft, online fraud, ransomware, child exploitation, cyberstalking, and state-sponsored hacking — using methods drawn from computer science, network analysis, and traditional criminological survey research (Holt & Bossler, 2016). Routine activities theory has proven particularly adaptable to online environments, where the convergence of motivated offenders and suitable targets occurs without physical proximity and where capable guardianship takes the form of cybersecurity infrastructure, platform governance, and user awareness.

Digital criminology extends beyond cybercrime per se to examine how digital technologies reshape the broader landscape of crime and justice. Algorithmic risk assessment tools, predictive policing platforms, facial recognition systems, body-worn cameras, electronic monitoring, and social media surveillance represent areas where technology intersects with criminal justice decision-making in ways that raise fundamental questions about accuracy, fairness, transparency, and civil liberties. Research on algorithmic bias — the finding that machine learning models trained on historically biased data can reproduce and amplify racial and socioeconomic disparities — has become one of the most policy-relevant areas of contemporary criminology (Brayne, 2020). This work requires computational skills and data science literacy that are increasingly recognized as essential components of graduate training.

Computational Criminology and Spatial Analysis

Computational criminology applies quantitative and computational methods — geographic information systems, agent-based modeling, network analysis, machine learning, and natural language processing — to crime data at scales and levels of complexity that conventional statistical approaches cannot easily handle. David Weisburd’s (2015) work on the criminology of place, which demonstrates that crime concentrates at micro-geographic units such as street segments and intersections, has generated an entire research program in spatial analysis with direct applications to policing strategy and urban planning. Crime mapping, once a specialized technical skill, has become standard practice in police departments and a core competency in many criminology graduate programs.

Network analysis has opened new avenues for studying co-offending relationships, gang structures, drug distribution networks, and the diffusion of violence through social ties. Andrew Papachristos’s (2009) research demonstrating that gunshot victimization clusters within identifiable social networks — and that an individual’s risk of being shot is predicted by the network position of their associates — has influenced focused deterrence interventions and group violence reduction strategies in multiple American cities. Agent-based modeling allows researchers to simulate the emergence of crime patterns from the interactions of individual decision-makers operating within spatial and social environments, testing theoretical propositions that are difficult to evaluate with observational data alone. These computational approaches are reshaping the methodological training expectations for the next generation of criminologists.

Table 1. Major Criminological Subfields and Their Characteristics

Subfield	Core Question	Characteristic Methods	Canonical Scholars	Key Journals	Policy Relevance
Developmental/Life-Course	How do criminal careers unfold over the life span?	Longitudinal cohort studies, growth curve modeling	Moffitt, Sampson, Laub, Farrington	Criminology, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency	Early intervention, age-appropriate sanctions
Biosocial Criminology	How do biological and social factors interact to produce crime?	Twin/adoption studies, neuroimaging, molecular genetics	Raine, Beaver, Barnes	Journal of Criminal Justice, Criminology	Rehabilitative programming, neuroscience-informed policy
Environmental/Spatial	Why does crime concentrate at specific places?	GIS, spatial statistics, CPTED evaluations	Weisburd, Brantingham, Eck	Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Criminology	Hot spots policing, urban design
Feminist Criminology	How do gender and patriarchy shape crime and justice?	Mixed methods, pathways research, qualitative interviews	Chesney-Lind, Daly, Renzetti	Feminist Criminology, Women & Criminal Justice	Gender-responsive programming
Green Criminology	How should criminology address environmental harm?	Case studies, legal analysis, policy evaluation	South, White, Brisman	International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy	Environmental regulation, corporate accountability
Cybercrime/Digital	How does technology reshape offending and justice?	Network analysis, computational methods, survey research	Holt, Bossler, Brayne, Wall	International Journal of Cyber Criminology	Cybersecurity policy, algorithmic fairness

Conclusion

The subfields and specializations that constitute contemporary criminology reflect a discipline that has grown far beyond its positivist origins in individual criminal typology. From developmental trajectories and biosocial interactions to spatial crime patterns, digital threats, environmental harm, and the structural inequalities embedded in justice institutions, criminological specialization follows the expanding recognition that crime is a multidimensional phenomenon requiring correspondingly diverse analytical tools. For students entering the field, the landscape of subfields represents not merely a menu of academic options but a map of the intellectual questions and practical problems that will define their professional lives. The boundaries between these specializations are increasingly permeable — a criminologist studying neighborhood violence may draw simultaneously on social disorganization theory, spatial analysis, network science, and procedural justice research — and the most productive scholarship often occurs precisely at these intersections.

References

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x
Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Northeastern University Press.
Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Anderson Publishing.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge University Press.
Brayne, S. (2020). Predict and surveil: Data, discretion, and the future of policing. Oxford University Press.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1989). Girls’ crime and woman’s place: Toward a feminist model of female delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 35(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128789035001002
Clarke, R. V. (1997). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (2nd ed.). Harrow and Heston.
Cullen, F. T., Agnew, R., & Wilcox, P. (2014). Criminological theory: Past to present (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Daigle, L. E. (2018). Victimology: The essentials (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Daly, K. (1994). Gender, crime, and punishment. Yale University Press.
DeKeseredy, W. S. (2011). Contemporary critical criminology. Routledge.
Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2005). Randomized experiments in criminology: What have we learned in the last two decades? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(1), 9–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-004-6460-0
Feld, B. C. (2017). The evolution of the juvenile court: Race, politics, and the criminalizing of juvenile justice. New York University Press.
Ferrell, J., Hayward, K., & Young, J. (2008). Cultural criminology: An invitation. Sage Publications.
Finkelhor, D., Turner, H. A., Hamby, S. L., & Ormrod, R. (2011). Polyvictimization: Children’s exposure to multiple types of violence, crime, and abuse. Juvenile Justice Bulletin (NCJ 235504). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2016). Cybercrime in progress: Theory and prevention of technology-enabled offenses. Routledge.
Laub, J. H. (2004). The life course of criminology in the United States: The American Society of Criminology 2003 Presidential Address. Criminology, 42(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00511.x
Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682.
Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2013). Crime and the American dream (5th ed.). Wadsworth.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674
Muhammad, K. G. (2010). The condemnation of blackness: Race, crime, and the making of modern urban America. Harvard University Press.
Papachristos, A. V. (2009). Murder by structure: Dominance relations and the social structure of gang homicide. American Journal of Sociology, 115(1), 74–128. https://doi.org/10.1086/597791
Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press.
Peterson, R. D., & Krivo, L. J. (2010). Divergent social worlds: Neighborhood crime and the racial-spatial divide. Russell Sage Foundation.
Raine, A. (2013). The anatomy of violence: The biological roots of crime. Pantheon Books.
Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. University of Chicago Press.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press.
Sherman, L. W. (1998). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. National Institute of Justice.
Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. Smith Institute.
Spohn, C. (2014). Racial disparities in prosecution, sentencing, and punishment. In S. Bucerius & M. Tonry (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ethnicity, crime, and immigration (pp. 166–193). Oxford University Press.
Steffensmeier, D., & Demuth, S. (2006). Does gender modify the effects of race-ethnicity on criminal sanctioning? Sentences for male and female white, black, and Hispanic defendants. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22(3), 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-006-9010-2
Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28(1), 78–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002
Tonry, M. (2011). Punishing race: A continuing American dilemma. Oxford University Press.
Tonry, M. (2015). Is cross-national and comparative research on the criminal justice system useful? European Journal of Criminology, 12(4), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370815581687
Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Urban Institute Press.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Yale University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
Weisburd, D. (2015). The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology, 53(2), 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12070
Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., Hinkle, J. C., & Eck, J. E. (2010). Is problem-oriented policing effective in reducing crime and disorder? Criminology & Public Policy, 9(1), 139–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2010.00617.x
White, R. (2011). Transnational environmental crime: Toward an eco-global criminology. Routledge.
Zehr, H. (1990). Changing lenses: A new focus for crime and justice. Herald Press.