Conflict theory in criminology reoriented the discipline’s explanatory focus from the individual offender and the disorganized community to the role of power, inequality, and political economy in shaping both the definition of crime and the operation of criminal justice institutions.
This article examines the intellectual origins of conflict criminology in the sociology of social conflict, the founding contributions of George Vold, Richard Quinney, William Chambliss, and Austin Turk, the Marxist turn and its theoretical elaborations, the left realist critique from within the conflict tradition, and the framework’s enduring influence on critical criminology and criminal justice reform scholarship within the broader History of Criminology. The argument advanced here is that conflict criminology’s most significant contribution was not any single empirical finding but a fundamental shift in criminological perspective—from asking why individuals violate legal rules to asking whose rules they are, how those rules came to be defined as criminal law, and whose interests criminal justice institutions serve in enforcing them.
Introduction
Conflict criminology emerged as a recognizable theoretical tradition in American criminology in the 1950s and 1960s from multiple intellectual sources: the sociology of social conflict developed by Georg Simmel, Ralf Dahrendorf, and Lewis Coser; the Marxist analysis of law and state power applied to criminal justice by European scholars and adapted by American criminologists; and the practical observation that the criminal justice system processed different populations very differently for comparable behaviors in ways that the consensus theories then dominant in American criminology could not explain. The convergence of these intellectual sources with the political crisis of the 1960s—the civil rights movement’s exposure of racial disparities in criminal justice, the counterculture’s challenge to the legitimacy of laws regulating drug use and political dissent, and the broader questioning of American institutions—produced a theoretical tradition that was simultaneously sociologically sophisticated and politically engaged.
The conflict tradition challenged two foundational assumptions of mainstream criminology. The first was the consensus assumption: that criminal law represented a social consensus about harmful behavior that transcended class, race, and other social divisions. Conflict criminologists argued instead that criminal law reflected the interests of dominant social groups—that the behaviors criminalized by law were primarily the behaviors of the less powerful, while the harmful behaviors of the more powerful were systematically excluded from criminal definition or prosecuted with far less rigor. The second was the value-neutrality assumption: that criminology could and should describe the social world of crime without evaluating the justice of the legal arrangements it studied. Conflict criminologists rejected this position, arguing that the choice to accept existing legal definitions of crime as the discipline’s empirical domain was itself a political choice that implicitly endorsed the existing distribution of power and harm.
These challenges made conflict criminology controversial in ways that its analytical sophistication alone would not have produced. By explicitly engaging with questions of political power and class interest, and by arguing that the criminal justice system served the interests of the powerful at the expense of the powerless, conflict criminologists were simultaneously making scientific claims and political interventions—a combination that produced both fierce intellectual debate and significant institutional resistance within a discipline that had historically prided itself on its practical connections to criminal justice institutions.
The reception of conflict criminology within the discipline was shaped significantly by the political climate of the late 1960s and 1970s. The societal upheaval of that period—urban riots, anti-war protests, the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy, the exposure of government corruption through Watergate—gave the conflict tradition’s critique of state institutions an empirical plausibility and a cultural resonance that it might not have achieved in a period of greater social stability. When students could see police beating protesters on television and when the Kerner Commission had documented systematic racial discrimination in American institutions, the argument that criminal law and criminal justice served power rather than justice required little theoretical elaboration to seem compelling. The conflict tradition rode this wave of institutional skepticism to a level of influence within academic criminology that its theoretical merits alone might not have secured.
Intellectual Origins
Georg Simmel, Dahrendorf, and the Sociology of Social Conflict
The sociological tradition of conflict analysis from which criminological conflict theory drew its initial conceptual resources was not primarily Marxist in character but drew on a broader tradition of thinking about social conflict as a fundamental feature of social life. Georg Simmel’s analysis of conflict as a form of social interaction—one that, like cooperation, bound social actors into relationships and produced social solidarity among antagonists as well as between allies—provided a theoretical framework for understanding social conflict that was more nuanced and more sociologically sophisticated than the simple opposition between consensus and conflict that subsequent debate sometimes implied.
Ralf Dahrendorf’s Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (1959) translated the Marxist analysis of class conflict into the terms of post-war industrial sociology, arguing that conflict arose not primarily from economic relations of production but from differential distributions of authority within organizations and institutions. Those with authority sought to maintain their positions and the social arrangements that sustained them; those subject to authority sought to expand their autonomy and resources. This authority-based analysis of social conflict was applicable to criminal justice institutions directly: those with the authority to define crime and enforce criminal law used that authority to protect the arrangements that sustained their power, while those subject to that authority experienced the criminal law as an instrument of control rather than protection.
Lewis Coser’s The Functions of Social Conflict (1956) had argued, following Simmel, that social conflict served positive social functions including the clarification of group boundaries, the expression of social tensions before they reached explosive intensity, and the motivation of social change. This functionalist-conflict synthesis was less directly useful for criminological conflict theory than Dahrendorf’s authority analysis, but it established the sociological legitimacy of analyzing conflict as a normal feature of social life rather than a pathological departure from social consensus—a legitimacy that conflict criminologists needed to establish for their own theoretical program.
The relevance of this sociological conflict tradition for criminology lay in its challenge to the consensus assumption that had organized both mainstream sociology and mainstream criminology. Talcott Parsons’s structural functionalism—the dominant theoretical framework in American sociology from the late 1940s through the early 1960s—had analyzed society as a system of interdependent structures integrated by shared values, with deviance representing a failure of socialization or integration rather than a product of structural conflict. Robert Merton’s strain theory had challenged this consensus framework by locating crime in the disjunction between cultural values and structural means, but it retained the assumption that there was a genuine cultural consensus about the value of success—that the goals blocked to the poor were goals everyone shared. Conflict theory went further, arguing that the values embedded in criminal law did not represent cultural consensus but the cultural hegemony of dominant classes—the successful imposition of the values and interests of the powerful as the apparent common sense of the entire society.
Karl Marx and the Critical Tradition
Karl Marx’s analysis of law as an instrument of class power—developed in The German Ideology, the Communist Manifesto, and scattered throughout his later economic writings—provided the most theoretically potent source for conflict criminology’s critique of criminal law and criminal justice. For Marx, law in capitalist society was not a neutral arbiter of social conflict but a reflection and protector of the interests of the ruling class: the class that controlled the means of economic production also controlled the production of legal rules, the institutions that enforced those rules, and the ideological frameworks through which the rules’ apparent neutrality and universality were maintained.
Applied to criminology, this Marxist framework predicted that the behaviors criminalized by law would be primarily the behaviors of the working class and the poor—behaviors that threatened property, disrupted the labor market, or challenged the social arrangements on which capitalist production depended—while the harmful behaviors of the capitalist class would be either not criminalized at all or enforced with dramatically less rigor. The empirical record of the criminal justice system—its dramatic overrepresentation of poor and minority populations among the arrested, convicted, and incarcerated; its relative inattention to corporate crime, environmental harm, and financial fraud; its history of using criminal law against labor organizers, political dissidents, and racial minorities—was, from the Marxist perspective, exactly what the theoretical framework predicted.
Steven Spitzer’s 1975 synthesis of Marxist criminological theory provided a more nuanced account of how capitalist development produced different categories of “problem populations”—those whose behavior threatened the organization of capitalist production—and how those populations were managed through different mechanisms including criminalization, medicalization, and welfare provision. Spitzer distinguished between “social junk” (populations that were troublesome but posed no direct threat to capitalist production) and “social dynamite” (populations whose potential for organized resistance made them actively threatening). The criminal justice system was primarily concerned with managing social dynamite—suppressing organized resistance, controlling populations that threatened property and the labor supply, and containing the contradictions of capitalist production that generated both poverty and crime. This more sophisticated class analysis helped move Marxist criminology beyond the simplistic base-superstructure model in which criminal law was a direct and transparent reflection of ruling-class interests toward a more nuanced account of how criminal law and criminal justice operated with relative autonomy while still systematically serving class power.
Table 1. Conflict Theory Perspectives: Core Claims, Principal Theorists, and Criminological Focus
| Perspective | Core Claim | Principal Theorists | Primary Criminological Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group conflict theory | Criminal law emerges from conflict among interest groups; it reflects the power of dominant groups | Vold (1958) | Law creation; criminalization politics; interest group competition |
| Marxist criminology | Law is an instrument of class power; crime control serves capitalist interests | Chambliss, Quinney, Spitzer | Class and crime; corporate crime; policing of the poor |
| Conflict-critical synthesis | Criminal law reflects multiple dimensions of power including race, gender, and class | Turk, Chambliss & Seidman | Criminalization processes; differential enforcement; racial disparities |
| Left realism | Crime is a real problem for working-class communities that requires both structural reform and practical crime control | Young, Lea | Victimization in poor communities; community safety; policing reform |
| Peacemaking criminology | Crime control through punishment reproduces violence; peace requires structural justice | Pepinsky, Quinney | Restorative justice; structural inequality; prison abolition |
George Vold and Group Conflict Theory
The Theoretical Framework
George Vold’s Theoretical Criminology (1958) provided the first systematic statement of a conflict theory of crime within the American criminological mainstream, drawing on the sociological conflict tradition to develop an account of crime as a product of the conflict between groups with competing interests and values. Vold’s central argument was that much criminal behavior—perhaps the majority of serious crime—could be understood as the behavior of minority power groups in conflict with the criminal law, which had been created by and reflected the values and interests of majority or dominant power groups.
Vold’s group conflict framework was explicitly pluralist rather than Marxist: he conceptualized society as composed of many competing groups—defined by religion, ethnicity, political ideology, economic interest, and other characteristics—rather than two fundamental classes defined by their relationship to the means of production. Criminal law emerged from the competition among these groups for political power, and it reflected the interests of whichever groups were dominant at any given time. Groups whose behaviors were criminalized by law were not objectively more harmful than groups whose behaviors were not criminalized; they were simply less politically powerful, less able to have their interests reflected in legal rules and criminal justice practice.
The policy implications of Vold’s group conflict theory were less radical than those of subsequent Marxist conflict criminology but no less challenging to conventional criminological assumptions. If crime was primarily a product of group conflict rather than individual pathology, then crime prevention required political management of group conflicts rather than individual treatment of criminal offenders. The relevant policy arena was not corrections but politics: the negotiation of accommodation among competing groups, the inclusion of previously excluded groups in political processes, and the reform of criminal laws that reflected the interests of specific groups rather than widely shared social values.
Extensions and Limitations
Vold’s group conflict theory was more useful as a framework for understanding some types of crime—particularly crimes connected to political conflict, gang violence, and the criminalization of minority subcultures—than others. Property crime, violent crime arising from personal disputes, and the vast majority of criminal offending could not be easily interpreted as the behavior of minority groups in political conflict with dominant-group law. This limitation led subsequent conflict theorists to develop more expansive frameworks that could account for a wider range of criminal behavior while preserving the conflict tradition’s critique of the political economy of criminal law.
Austin Turk’s Criminality and Legal Order (1969) developed the most sophisticated authority-conflict analysis within the criminological tradition, providing a detailed account of how the relationship between legal authorities and subjects shaped the probability that specific behaviors would be criminalized, specific actors would be arrested and prosecuted, and specific populations would be systematically subjected to criminal justice control. Turk’s framework specified the conditions under which the conflict between authorities and subjects was most likely to produce criminalization: when subjects were unsophisticated, when their behaviors were culturally significant to authorities, when social distance between authorities and subjects was large, and when the criminal acts in question were highly visible and symbolically threatening to the social order that authorities sought to maintain.
Chambliss, Quinney, and the Marxist Turn
Radical Criminology and the Political Economy of Crime
The late 1960s and early 1970s produced a more explicitly Marxist turn in American conflict criminology, associated primarily with the work of William Chambliss, Richard Quinney, and their collaborators. Chambliss’s empirical research—on the origins of vagrancy law as an instrument of labor control, on the selective enforcement of criminal law in Seattle’s gambling and vice markets, and on the comparative study of criminal justice in different political-economic systems—provided the empirical grounding for conflict theory that Vold’s more theoretical framework lacked. Chambliss demonstrated through detailed historical and ethnographic research that the creation and enforcement of criminal law was a political-economic process in which class interests consistently shaped outcomes, from the initial criminalization of behaviors threatening to propertied classes through the systematic enforcement of those laws against the economically marginal.
Richard Quinney’s The Social Reality of Crime (1970) provided the most systematic theoretical statement of the radical criminological position, presenting six propositions that together constituted an account of crime as a social construction whose parameters were shaped by the interests of the ruling class. For Quinney, crime was not an objective category of behavior but a legal definition applied through political processes that reflected the power of those who controlled legal institutions. The application of criminal definitions to specific acts and actors was shaped by the interests of those who wielded definitional power, and the result was a system that systematically labeled the behaviors of the powerless as criminal while insulating the behaviors of the powerful from criminal sanction.
Chambliss and Seidman: Law, Order, and Power
Chambliss and Seidman’s Law, Order, and Power (1971) synthesized the Marxist and conflict-analytical traditions into the most rigorous theoretical and empirical treatment of the political economy of criminal justice that the period produced. The book’s central argument—that the criminal justice system, despite its ideological presentation as a neutral arbiter of social conflict, systematically served the interests of ruling elites in maintaining the social arrangements on which their power depended—was supported through analysis of legislative processes, judicial decision-making, prosecutorial discretion, and police deployment patterns that documented the consistency with which criminal justice outcomes favored the interests of the economically and politically powerful.
The book’s analysis of bureaucratic self-interest as a force shaping criminal justice outcomes—alongside class interest—was particularly sophisticated. Chambliss and Seidman argued that criminal justice actors were not simply agents of class interest but also pursued the institutional interests of their own organizations, developing operational norms and enforcement priorities that served organizational survival and expansion rather than either justice or public safety. This insight—that organizational interests shaped criminal justice outcomes independently of class interest and sometimes in tension with it—anticipated the institutional criminology that subsequent scholars would develop and provided a more nuanced account of how power operated through criminal justice institutions than purely class-based analyses could offer.
Jeffrey Reiman’s The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison (1979) provided the most sustained empirical and normative critique of American criminal justice from within the conflict tradition, documenting in meticulous detail the systematic pattern by which criminal justice institutions—from police through prosecutors through sentencing judges—processed comparable harmful behavior by wealthy and poor defendants with dramatically different outcomes. Reiman’s “pyrrhic defeat” theory proposed that the criminal justice system’s apparent failure to reduce crime was not a genuine failure but a structural success: by focusing enforcement resources on the crimes of the poor while largely ignoring the harms of the wealthy, the system served the ideological function of associating crime with poverty and race in ways that distracted public attention from the systemic harms—workplace deaths, environmental pollution, consumer fraud, healthcare failures—that caused far more aggregate harm than street crime. The criminal justice system was pyrrhically defeated in its stated goals precisely because its actual functions—maintaining class power and racial control—were better served by highly visible but ultimately ineffective enforcement against the crimes of the poor than by effective enforcement against all harmful behavior regardless of the social status of those who inflicted it.
Reiman’s framework has proven durable because it has accurate predictive power: each new wave of research documenting the leniency with which financial fraud, environmental crime, workplace safety violations, and pharmaceutical harm are treated relative to comparable harms caused by individuals without economic power confirms the pattern he identified. The 2008 financial crisis—in which fraudulent practices by financial institutions produced the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression, causing trillions of dollars in harm to ordinary Americans, with essentially no criminal prosecution of the executives responsible—provided perhaps the starkest illustration yet of the differential application of criminal law that conflict criminology had predicted and documented across its full history. The contrast between the prosecution of street-level drug offenders and the non-prosecution of financial executives responsible for systematic fraud became a touchstone of public discourse about criminal justice inequality that drew directly on the analytical framework that conflict criminology had developed.
Mass Incarceration and the Conflict Analysis
The Political Economy of Punitive Turn
The extraordinary expansion of American incarceration from the early 1970s through the 2000s—from approximately 200,000 prisoners in 1972 to over 2.3 million by 2008—has provided conflict criminology with its most consequential empirical case study and its most practically urgent policy challenge. The punitive turn that produced mass incarceration cannot be explained by changes in crime rates alone: American crime rates rose substantially in the 1960s and 1970s, but they also declined substantially through the 1990s and 2000s without producing a corresponding reduction in incarceration. The explanation for the punitive turn lies in the political economy of crime control—in the specific political choices, racial anxieties, institutional interests, and economic incentives that shaped criminal justice policy decisions over four decades.
Loïc Wacquant’s analysis of the penal field as a mechanism of racial control—connecting the mass incarceration of Black Americans to the historical sequence of institutions (slavery, Jim Crow segregation, the ghetto, the prison) through which Black labor and Black life had been controlled in American history—provided the most theoretically ambitious conflict analysis of mass incarceration and its racial dimensions. Wacquant argued that the prison had become, for poor Black Americans, a primary institution of social life—one that processed a substantial proportion of Black men through incarceration at some point in their lives and that marked those processed with permanent stigma that shaped their social, economic, and political opportunities thereafter. This “prisonization” of Black life was not a natural consequence of higher Black crime rates but a political choice—a choice made through the specific mechanisms of mandatory minimums, three-strikes laws, the war on drugs, and prosecutorial discretion that the conflict tradition had analyzed as serving racial control and class power.
Corporate Crime and the Limits of Criminal Law
The conflict tradition’s analysis of corporate crime—its causes, its social costs, its systematic underprosecution, and its theoretical significance for understanding the relationship between criminal law and social harm—has been one of the most productive empirical research programs within critical criminology. Beginning with Sutherland’s foundational work and extending through Clinard and Yeager’s analysis of Fortune 500 corporate violations, Frank Pearce’s Crimes of the Powerful, and the contemporary work of scholars studying financial fraud, environmental crime, and pharmaceutical harm, conflict criminologists have documented that the economic harm caused by corporate crime dramatically exceeds the harm caused by street crime while attracting a tiny fraction of the criminal justice resources devoted to street crime enforcement.
The explanation for this disparity, on the conflict analysis, is not that corporate crimes are inherently less harmful than street crimes but that those who commit corporate crimes have far greater political and economic power than those who commit street crimes—power that enables them to prevent criminalization of their most harmful activities, to secure favorable regulatory treatment when their activities are regulated rather than criminalized, to challenge prosecutions with expensive legal resources unavailable to street offenders, and to maintain their social standing despite criminal convictions in ways that street offenders cannot. The differential treatment of corporate and street crime is thus, for conflict criminology, the clearest empirical demonstration of its theoretical claim that criminal law and criminal justice reflect power rather than justice.
Left Realism and the Internal Critique
Young, Lea, and the Left Realist Turn
The left realist critique of radical criminology, developed in Britain primarily by Jock Young and John Lea through the 1980s, represented the most significant internal challenge to the conflict criminological tradition—arguing from within the critical tradition that radical criminology had allowed its theoretical critique of criminal law and criminal justice to blind it to the real harm that crime caused to working-class and minority communities, and that a criminology committed to social justice had to take crime seriously as a genuine social problem rather than primarily as a reflection of ruling-class power.
Young and Lea’s critique began with the observation that radical criminology’s characteristic response to crime statistics—to dismiss them as artifacts of biased criminal justice processing rather than reflections of genuine behavioral variation—had led critical criminologists to systematically underestimate the crime burden borne by disadvantaged communities. Victimization survey data consistently showed that poor, minority, and urban populations experienced higher rates of criminal victimization than affluent, white, and suburban populations—not primarily because they were more likely to be processed by biased criminal justice institutions but because they were more likely to actually be victimized by crime. A criminology that denied the reality of this crime burden in favor of a theoretical emphasis on the social construction of deviance was not serving the interests of the communities it claimed to advocate for.
The Square of Crime and Community Safety
Left realism’s theoretical contribution was the “square of crime” framework—a relational model of crime that specified four interconnected elements: the offender, the victim, the police, and the community. Understanding crime, on this account, required analyzing the relationships among all four elements simultaneously rather than focusing exclusively on the relationship between the criminal justice system and the offender, as radical criminology had tended to do. The victim’s perspective—long neglected by both traditional criminology, which focused on offenders, and radical criminology, which focused on criminal justice institutions—was central to the left realist program.
Left realism’s policy agenda was correspondingly more practical than radical criminology’s: rather than waiting for the structural transformation of capitalism before addressing crime, left realists advocated for police reform to make law enforcement more accountable to the communities it served, for targeted crime prevention programs in high-crime neighborhoods, and for political mobilization of working-class communities around both crime control and the structural conditions that produced crime. This combination of immediate practical concern with longer-term structural analysis—the commitment to addressing crime as it actually existed while pursuing the social changes that would reduce it at its roots—gave left realism a more productive relationship with criminal justice practice than radical criminology’s fundamentally oppositional stance.
The left realist local crime survey methodology—systematic victimization surveys conducted in specific high-crime communities to document the actual distribution and character of criminal victimization as experienced by community members—provided an empirical tool that connected the conflict tradition’s structural analysis to the lived reality of crime in disadvantaged communities. The Islington Crime Survey and subsequent local surveys found that working-class and minority communities experienced high rates of victimization precisely in the crimes—burglary, robbery, assault—that radical criminology had sometimes dismissed as exaggerated threats amplified by moral panic. These findings supported left realism’s insistence that crime was a genuine social problem requiring serious policy attention alongside structural critique, and they provided an empirical foundation for police reform advocacy that demanded both accountability to community interests and actual effectiveness in reducing the crimes that communities experienced as most harmful.
Conclusion
Conflict theory’s contribution to criminology is measured not only by the specific empirical findings it produced—though the documentation of class and race disparities in criminal justice processing that conflict-oriented researchers provided was substantial and consequential—but by the permanent expansion of criminological inquiry it achieved. By establishing that criminal law was a political product whose scope and application reflected power relationships rather than objective judgments about harmfulness, conflict criminology established the sociology of criminal law and criminal justice as legitimate and necessary components of a complete criminological science.
The conflict tradition’s internal debates—between Marxist and pluralist approaches, between radical and left realist positions, between structural critique and practical engagement—have been productive precisely because they have forced the tradition to confront both the genuine insights of its foundational critique and the limitations of frameworks that reduce the complexity of crime and criminal justice to any single causal logic.
The conflict tradition’s most durable intellectual legacy may be its contribution to the sociology of criminal law—the systematic analysis of how criminal laws are created, how their scope is determined, how they are enforced, and whose interests these processes serve. This sociology of criminal law, developed from Chambliss’s historical analyses through Quinney’s theoretical framework to the contemporary work of scholars studying mass incarceration’s political economy, has permanently established that criminal law is not a natural fact but a social product whose character must be explained rather than assumed. This perspective—that criminal law is historically contingent, politically shaped, and reflective of power relationships rather than neutral judgments about harm—is now so thoroughly incorporated into criminological thinking that it is sometimes invisible as a theoretical choice, having become part of the discipline’s common sense in ways that would have seemed radical when Vold and Chambliss first articulated them. Contemporary critical criminology—engaging with mass incarceration, racial disparities, corporate crime, state violence, immigration enforcement, and the structural conditions of urban poverty—continues to draw on the conflict tradition’s analytical resources while addressing the limitations that left realism and subsequent scholarship identified. The tradition’s future vitality depends on maintaining the balance between structural critique and practical engagement that left realism demanded—a balance that remains as difficult and as necessary today as it was when Vold first proposed that crime was principally a product of social conflict six decades ago, and when Chambliss documented that proposition with the empirical specificity that transformed it from a theoretical claim into a research program. The result is a criminological tradition that combines analytical sophistication with practical engagement in ways that make it one of the discipline’s most productive and politically consequential research programs.
References
- Barak, G. (Ed.). (1994). Varieties of criminology: Readings from a dynamic discipline. Praeger.
- Chambliss, W. J. (1964). A sociological analysis of the law of vagrancy. Social Problems, 12(1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.2307/799game
- Chambliss, W. J. (1975). Toward a political economy of crime. Theory and Society, 2(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00212732
- Chambliss, W. J., & Seidman, R. T. (1971). Law, order, and power. Addison-Wesley.
- Coser, L. A. (1956). The functions of social conflict. Free Press.
- Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society. Stanford University Press.
- DeKeseredy, W. S. (2011). Contemporary critical criminology. Routledge.
- Gordon, D. M. (1973). Capitalism, class, and crime in America. Crime & Delinquency, 19(2), 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/001112877301900204
- Greenberg, D. F. (Ed.). (1981). Crime and capitalism: Readings in Marxist criminology. Mayfield.
- Lea, J., & Young, J. (1984). What is to be done about law and order? Penguin.
- Lynch, M. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). A primer in radical criminology (2nd ed.). Harrow and Heston.
- Quinney, R. (1970). The social reality of crime. Little, Brown.
- Quinney, R. (1974). Critique of legal order: Crime control in capitalist society. Little, Brown.
- Reiman, J. H., & Leighton, P. (2017). The rich get richer and the poor get prison (11th ed.). Routledge.
- Spitzer, S. (1975). Toward a Marxian theory of deviance. Social Problems, 22(5), 638–651. https://doi.org/10.2307/800173
- Sumner, C. (1994). The sociology of deviance: An obituary. Continuum.
- Taylor, I., Walton, P., & Young, J. (1973). The new criminology: For a social theory of deviance. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
- Turk, A. T. (1969). Criminality and legal order. Rand McNally.
- Void, G. B. (1958). Theoretical criminology. Oxford University Press.
- Young, J. (1997). Left realist criminology: Radical in its analysis, realist in its policy. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (2nd ed., pp. 473–498). Oxford University Press.
- Young, J., & Matthews, R. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking criminology: The realist debate. SAGE Publications.
- Zatz, M. S. (2000). The convergence of race, ethnicity, gender, and class on court decisionmaking: Looking toward the 21st century. Criminal Justice, 3, 503–552.