Social structure — the organized, patterned arrangements of social positions, institutions, and relationships that constitute the framework within which social life is conducted — shapes criminal behavior not primarily through its direct effects on individual psychology but through the opportunity structures, resource distributions, institutional arrangements, and normative environments it creates. The sociological study of crime begins with the proposition that criminal behavior cannot be adequately explained by reference to individual characteristics alone: the distribution of crime across populations, places, and time reflects the distribution of social structural conditions in ways that demand structural explanation rather than individual psychology. Sociology and Criminology treats social structure as the primary context within which crime must be understood — the framework that determines who faces what crime risks, what legitimate and illegitimate opportunities are available for meeting social goals, and what institutional resources exist for controlling criminal behavior.
The social structural approach to crime has a long intellectual history beginning with Durkheim’s sociology of deviance and continuing through Merton’s anomie theory, Shaw and McKay’s social disorganization research, conflict criminology, and the contemporary literatures on concentrated disadvantage, institutional anomie, and the comparative analysis of national crime rates. Each theoretical tradition within this broad approach identifies different structural features — normative integration, opportunity structures, institutional arrangements, power relations — as the primary determinants of crime rates, and each has generated empirical research that has both confirmed its core predictions and revealed the limits of any single structural account. The synthesis of these traditions into a comprehensive structural criminology is among the most important theoretical challenges facing the field.
Introduction
The distinction between social structure and social process in criminology is analytically useful but empirically porous: structural conditions shape processes (concentrated poverty weakens the community social organization through which informal control operates), and processes in turn reproduce or modify structures (the mass incarceration era altered the family and community structures of the most affected neighborhoods). Understanding the causal priority of structure over process — or the recursive relationship between them — is essential for both theoretical precision and policy relevance. A purely structural account that treats social arrangements as given background conditions for the processes that produce crime fails to address why those structural conditions exist, how they might be changed, and why they vary so dramatically across societies, cities, and historical periods. A purely processual account that treats social structure as merely the context within which processes operate fails to explain why those processes produce such systematically different outcomes across structurally different populations and places.
Contemporary social structural criminology navigates this tension by treating structural conditions as constraints and opportunities that shape the probabilities of criminal and conventional behavior without determining them — by establishing the conditions within which individual agency operates rather than bypassing individual agency entirely. This probabilistic account is consistent with both the variability of individual outcomes within similar structural conditions (not everyone in concentrated poverty commits crime) and the systematic patterning of crime across structural conditions (concentrated poverty predicts elevated crime rates across diverse populations, time periods, and cities).
The major structural approaches to crime can be organized around three questions: the question of integration (how the degree of normative consensus and social integration shapes deviance rates — the Durkheimian tradition); the question of opportunity (how the distribution of legitimate and illegitimate opportunities shapes the probability of different behavioral responses to common goals — the Mertonian tradition); and the question of power (how the distribution of power determines both which behaviors are criminalized and whose harmful behaviors are controlled — the conflict tradition). These three questions generate different theoretical frameworks whose insights are more complementary than competitive, and whose integration into a unified structural criminology remains an important theoretical project.
Durkheim and the Sociology of Deviance
Anomie and Social Integration
Émile Durkheim’s contributions to the sociology of deviance — developed primarily in The Division of Labour in Society (1893) and Suicide (1897) — established the foundational framework within which structural approaches to crime have developed. Durkheim’s central insight was that deviance rates are social facts: properties of social systems that cannot be explained by aggregating individual pathologies but require explanation at the level of social structure. The specific structural property Durkheim identified as most consequential for deviance rates was social integration — the degree to which individuals are bound to the collective by shared norms, social relationships, and collective sentiments — and anomie, the normative deregulation that results from rapid social change, economic crisis, or the failure of social institutions to provide normative guidance adequate to the complexity of modern social life.
Durkheim’s anomie concept was primarily about the normative rather than the economic dimensions of social structure: anomie produces deviance and crime not because it leaves individuals materially deprived but because it leaves them without the normative frameworks through which unlimited desires are regulated and legitimate means distinguished from illegitimate ones. The crime and deviance consequences of rapid industrialization, urbanization, and social change — the phenomena that Durkheim observed in late nineteenth-century France — reflected the disruption of traditional normative integration rather than poverty per se. This distinction — between normative disintegration and material deprivation as the primary structural causes of crime — remains a productive tension in the structural criminology literature that Merton’s reformulation of anomie theory sharpened rather than resolved.
Merton’s Anomie/Strain Theory
Robert Merton’s reformulation of anomie theory in his 1938 essay “Social Structure and Anomie” transformed Durkheim’s sociological concept into a specifically American theory of crime that addressed the specific structural conditions of capitalist democratic society. Merton proposed that American culture creates a disjunction between the universally prescribed goal of monetary success and the structurally unequal distribution of legitimate means for achieving it — and that this disjunction produces anomie (in Merton’s specific usage, the gap between culturally prescribed goals and structurally available means) that motivates various forms of deviant adaptation.
Merton’s typology of adaptations to this structural disjunction — conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion — is among the most widely taught in introductory criminology precisely because it derives individual behavioral responses from structural conditions in a parsimonious and intuitive way. Innovation — which combines acceptance of cultural success goals with rejection of legitimate means and substitution of illegitimate ones — is the adaptation Merton primarily associated with crime, and it is most likely to occur among individuals who are most strongly socialized into the cultural goal of monetary success while facing the most limited access to legitimate means. This structural prediction — that crime should concentrate among the most culturally integrated but structurally excluded populations — was consistent with the observed concentration of property crime among lower-class urban youth in the 1930s.
Table 1. Structural Theories of Crime: Comparison
| Theory | Primary Structural Variable | Mechanism Linking Structure to Crime | Crime Prediction | Primary Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Durkheimian anomie | Normative integration | Deregulation of desires; weakened collective conscience | Crime rises in periods of rapid social change | Cross-national and historical variation in crime rates |
| Mertonian strain | Disjunction between goals and means | Frustrated legitimate aspirations motivate illegitimate means | Property crime concentrates among lower-class and excluded populations | Class-crime correlations; relative deprivation research |
| Social disorganization | Ecological conditions weakening informal control | Inability to maintain social order through community mechanisms | Crime concentrates in socially disorganized neighborhoods | Neighborhood crime concentration; collective efficacy research |
| Conflict theory | Power and economic inequality | Criminalization serves dominant class interests; structural inequality produces crime | Crime of powerful under-prosecuted; crime of powerless over-prosecuted | Racial and class disparities in arrest and prosecution |
| Institutional anomie | Imbalance among major institutions | Dominance of economic institutions weakens other institutions | High-inequality societies show higher crime | Cross-national comparative research; Messner & Rosenfeld |
| Critical criminology | Capitalist social relations | Alienation, commodification, structural marginality | Crime reflects structural conditions of capitalism | Historical and comparative crime analysis |
General Strain Theory: Agnew’s Extension
Robert Agnew’s general strain theory (GST) — published in 1992 — extended Merton’s structural framework by expanding the concept of strain beyond the single dimension of blocked economic opportunity to encompass multiple sources of strain and their emotional consequences. Agnew proposed that strain motivates crime through three distinct mechanisms: the failure to achieve positively valued goals (Merton’s original formulation, extended beyond monetary success to include respect, autonomy, and other valued goals); the removal of positively valued stimuli (loss of valued relationships, possessions, or positions); and the presentation of negatively valued stimuli (physical and emotional abuse, victimization, discrimination, neighborhood disorder). Each form of strain produces negative affect — anger, frustration, depression, and anxiety — that motivates criminal behavior through emotional discharge, revenge, or escape.
GST’s structural dimensions operate through the specific types of strain that different structural positions generate. Concentrated poverty produces all three forms of strain simultaneously — blocked opportunity, resource loss, and exposure to disorder and victimization — in a compound that the theory predicts will motivate the highest rates of criminal behavior. Research testing GST has found consistent support for the relationship between specific strains and criminal behavior, with the anger pathway showing the strongest evidence for violent crime and the escape pathway showing stronger evidence for drug use and retreatist adaptations. Recent research has extended GST to examine the conditioning factors that determine whether strain results in criminal versus conforming responses — including the availability of legitimate coping mechanisms, levels of social support, and individual differences in emotional regulation — providing the person-environment interaction framework that the theory’s structural logic implies but does not fully specify.
Social Disorganization Theory
Shaw, McKay, and Ecological Analysis
The social disorganization tradition — reviewed in greater depth in the urban criminology articles — represents the most empirically productive structural criminology developed in the twentieth century. Shaw and McKay’s systematic ecological analysis of delinquency in Chicago established that crime rates reflected neighborhood structural conditions rather than the characteristics of the individuals within those neighborhoods, providing the foundational evidence for structural criminology’s central claim. Their identification of three structural conditions — low socioeconomic status, ethnic heterogeneity, and residential instability — as the primary determinants of social disorganization and through it elevated crime rates set the research agenda for community-level crime research for decades.
Contemporary social disorganization research — epitomized by Sampson and colleagues’ collective efficacy framework, which proposed that social cohesion and willingness to exercise informal control mediate the relationship between structural disadvantage and crime — has provided the micro-level mechanisms through which macro-level structural conditions translate into neighborhood crime rates. The finding that neighborhoods with similar structural characteristics can differ substantially in crime rates depending on their levels of collective efficacy establishes that structure operates through process rather than directly, while the finding that collective efficacy is itself a function of structural conditions establishes the primacy of structure in the causal chain.
Concentrated Disadvantage and Structural Inequality
The concentrated disadvantage framework developed by Robert Sampson and colleagues — building on William Julius Wilson’s analysis of the structural transformation of inner-city communities in The Truly Disadvantaged (1987) — represents the most important contemporary elaboration of social disorganization theory. Concentrated disadvantage as measured in criminological research combines poverty, unemployment, public assistance receipt, female-headed households, and racial composition into a composite that captures the co-occurrence of multiple structural disadvantages in specific geographic locations. Research consistently finds this composite to be among the strongest neighborhood-level predictors of violent crime rates, independently of individual-level characteristics.
The structural analysis of concentrated disadvantage points toward the political and economic processes — deindustrialization, racial residential segregation, public housing policy, discriminatory mortgage lending — that produced the specific spatial concentration of disadvantage in American cities rather than treating that concentration as a natural feature of the urban landscape. This historical-structural analysis is essential for understanding both why concentrated disadvantage exists where it does and what structural changes would address it, connecting the criminological evidence to the policy interventions that structural theory motivates.
General Social Strain and Structural Context
The relationship between macro-level structural conditions and individual-level strain operates through the mechanisms that both Merton’s and Agnew’s versions of strain theory identify, but its translation into crime depends on the institutional framework that mediates between structural conditions and individual experience. Research by Piquero and Sealock examining GST at the neighborhood level found that neighborhood disadvantage elevated crime through the multiple strain pathways that Agnew specified, while research by Leeper Piquero and Sealock found that the relationship between structural strain and criminal responses was moderated by social support and coping resources — establishing the structural-processual linkage that requires both structural analysis and micro-level analysis of the mechanisms through which structure shapes individual behavior.
Institutional Anomie Theory
Messner and Rosenfeld’s Cross-National Framework
Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld’s institutional anomie theory — developed in Crime and the American Dream (1994) and elaborated in subsequent research — represents the most systematic contemporary elaboration of Merton’s structural approach, extending it from the micro-level analysis of individual adaptations to the macro-level analysis of how societal institutional arrangements determine national crime rates. The theory proposes that the American Dream’s cultural emphasis on economic success — what Merton called the universal goal prescription — dominates and devalues the non-economic institutions (family, school, civic society) that would otherwise regulate behavior and provide alternative sources of meaning and identity. When economic institutions dominate, other institutions are weakened in their capacity to socialize individuals into non-economic values and to exercise the social control that crime prevention requires.
Cross-national comparative research testing institutional anomie theory has found consistent evidence that countries with stronger welfare states — which provide social protection through non-economic institutions and reduce the dominance of economic achievement as the primary social value — show lower rates of violent crime after controlling for other structural factors. Research by Messner, Rosenfeld, and colleagues using multiple cross-national datasets has found that measures of decommodification — the degree to which social welfare is organized through non-market institutions — predict lower homicide rates across high-income countries, supporting the institutional balance argument even when controlling for income inequality, urbanization, and other confounders.
Conflict and Critical Structural Approaches
Conflict Theory and the Structural Roots of Criminalization
Conflict criminology — associated with theorists including Void, Turk, Chambliss, Quinney, and Taylor, Walton, and Young — shifts the structural question from what produces criminal behavior to what produces criminal law: why specific behaviors are criminalized, whose behaviors are criminalized, and how the criminal justice system’s processing of criminal cases reflects and reinforces structural inequality. The conflict approach treats criminal law not as a neutral codification of universal moral prohibitions but as an artifact of the power relations between competing social groups — groups whose conflicts over resources, status, and cultural values are partly resolved through legislation that criminalizes the behaviors of less powerful groups while protecting the interests of more powerful ones.
Research documenting racial and class disparities in arrest rates, prosecution rates, conviction rates, and sentencing outcomes — controlling for legally relevant factors — provides evidence consistent with the conflict account of differential enforcement, though the interpretation of these disparities as evidence of deliberate class or racial oppression rather than the product of structural factors that operate without conscious discriminatory intent is contested in the literature. The most important criminological contribution of conflict theory is not the claim that criminal justice is an instrument of conscious class oppression but the insistence that the structural distribution of power shapes the content of criminal law and the patterns of criminal justice enforcement in ways that systematic empirical analysis can document and that structural accounts must address.
Contemporary Structural Inequality and Crime
Contemporary structural criminology has engaged seriously with the relationship between economic inequality — measured by Gini coefficients or other distributional measures — and violent crime rates at both the national and sub-national level. The cross-national and cross-city evidence on the inequality-crime relationship is among the most consistent in comparative criminology: higher inequality predicts higher violent crime rates across diverse samples, methodological approaches, and time periods, with the effect concentrated on interpersonal violence rather than property crime and particularly strong for homicide.
Research by Fajnzylber, Lederman, and Loayza on cross-national panel data found robust positive effects of income inequality on homicide rates after controlling for national income level, urbanization, and other confounders, establishing the inequality-violence relationship with longitudinal evidence that cross-sectional studies alone cannot provide. More recent research by Morgan and Kelly using updated cross-national data and improved inequality measures has confirmed this relationship while documenting important heterogeneity in the strength of inequality effects across welfare state regime types, consistent with institutional anomie theory’s prediction that the crime consequences of inequality are moderated by the institutional framework within which inequality is embedded.
White-Collar Crime and Structural Opportunity
The structural approach to crime has been most powerfully applied to street crime and lower-class offending, but its implications for white-collar and corporate crime are equally important and less frequently emphasized. If crime reflects the structural distribution of opportunities and the institutional arrangements that shape behavior, then the opportunities for financial fraud, environmental violation, and consumer deception available to corporate actors should predict those forms of crime in the same way that street-level criminal opportunity predicts street crime. Research by Edwin Sutherland’s foundational white-collar crime studies, and by the subsequent literature on corporate crime, organizational deviance, and regulatory crime, has established that structural opportunity — access to positions enabling white-collar crime — is the primary predictor of corporate criminal behavior, consistent with the structural framework applied to street crime.
The structural analysis of white-collar crime also illuminates the power dimension of criminal law that conflict theory emphasizes: the behaviors that produce the largest aggregate harm — corporate fraud, environmental pollution, workplace safety violations — are typically regulated through civil and administrative mechanisms that impose lower costs on offenders than the criminal sanctions applied to comparably harmful street-level conduct. This selective criminalization reflects the political power of corporate actors in shaping the legal framework that governs their conduct, establishing that structural power shapes both the content of criminal law and the distribution of criminal enforcement in ways that purely behavioral accounts of crime cannot capture.
Structural Racism and Crime
Contemporary structural criminology has increasingly engaged with the structural dimensions of racial inequality in ways that move beyond the general inequality-crime relationship to address the specific mechanisms through which racial residential segregation, discriminatory policy, and the structural legacy of slavery and Jim Crow shape the distribution of crime and criminal justice in the United States. Research by Peterson and Krivo’s National Neighborhood Crime Study — comparing crime rates across racially segregated and integrated neighborhoods while controlling for socioeconomic characteristics — found that racial segregation elevated crime rates in Black neighborhoods independently of poverty, establishing segregation itself as a structural cause of crime beyond the poverty it concentrates.
The structural racism framework — which examines how institutional practices and policies that are facially race-neutral in their design produce racially disparate outcomes through their interaction with existing racial stratification — has been applied to criminal justice to explain the extraordinary racial disparities in arrest, prosecution, and incarceration that persist after controlling for legally relevant factors. Research documenting that racial disparities in criminal justice contact are partially reproduced by the criminal records that prior contact creates — making historically discriminatory enforcement a current-day structural cause of future enforcement through the criminal history provisions in charging and sentencing guidelines — establishes the structural reproduction of racial inequality in criminal justice as a self-perpetuating mechanism that individual-level anti-discrimination measures cannot fully address.
The comparative criminology of structural conditions — examining how different national institutional arrangements produce different crime rates — provides the most rigorous test of structural criminology’s core claims available, because the variation in structural conditions across nations is substantially larger than the variation available within any single national context. Research on the cross-national determinants of homicide rates has consistently found that income inequality, social safety net generosity, and racial residential segregation are among the strongest predictors, while GDP per capita shows only modest and inconsistent relationships — establishing that it is the distribution of economic resources rather than their aggregate level that determines crime rates, consistent with both Merton’s relative deprivation account and Messner and Rosenfeld’s institutional anomie framework. The recent expansion of this comparative research to include low- and middle-income countries through the work of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and cross-national research networks has substantially extended the geographic scope of structural criminology’s evidence base while also revealing important heterogeneity in the mechanisms that connect structural conditions to crime across different institutional and developmental contexts.
The structural approach has also become increasingly important for understanding the crime consequences of the mass incarceration era itself — a structural transformation of American social organization whose criminological consequences are only beginning to be fully understood. Research by Clear, Western, Wakefield, and others has documented that the concentrated incarceration of young men from the most disadvantaged neighborhoods has itself become a structural cause of the crime and disadvantage it ostensibly addresses: by removing workers and fathers from already fragile social structures, disrupting family formation, and returning large numbers of criminalized individuals to communities ill-equipped to absorb them, mass incarceration has created a structural feedback loop that reproduces the conditions it claims to address. This structural critique of criminal justice policy — that enforcement strategies become structural causes of the conditions they were supposed to prevent — is among the most important contributions of structural criminology to contemporary policy debate.
Research on the structural consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic — which temporarily disrupted the institutional structures and economic arrangements that structural criminology identifies as primary determinants of crime — provided a natural experiment in structural effects whose analysis is ongoing. The pandemic homicide surge of 2020 and the subsequent partial recovery reflect the rapid structural changes — economic disruption, institutional closure, police-community relationship damage — that the pandemic simultaneously produced, demonstrating both the responsiveness of crime rates to structural conditions and the complexity of identifying specific structural mechanisms in contexts where multiple conditions change simultaneously. The pandemic’s differential impact across structurally advantaged and disadvantaged communities — with disadvantaged communities bearing both higher economic disruption and higher violence increases — is consistent with the structural criminology prediction that those facing the most structural strain will show the largest crime-related responses to structural disruption.
Conclusion
The structural tradition in criminology has produced some of the field’s most powerful insights and most frustrating policy implications. Its power lies in the demonstration that crime rates reflect organized social arrangements — the distribution of resources, the institutional balance of a society, the spatial organization of disadvantage — in ways that individual-level explanations cannot capture. Its policy frustration lies in the fact that changing those organized arrangements requires political action at a scale and of a kind that is systematically more difficult than the individual-level interventions that criminal justice agencies can implement without political mobilization.
Social structure and crime are connected through multiple pathways — normative disintegration (Durkheim), structural opportunity blockage (Merton), community social disorganization (Shaw, McKay, Sampson), institutional imbalance (Messner and Rosenfeld), and power-laden criminalization (conflict theory) — each of which captures a different dimension of how organized social arrangements shape both the distribution of crime and the distribution of criminal justice. The theoretical landscape of structural criminology is not a competition among mutually exclusive accounts but an accumulation of complementary insights whose integration produces a more complete understanding than any single framework can achieve alone.
The policy implications of structural criminology are consistently directed toward structural change rather than individual-level intervention: reducing inequality, strengthening non-economic institutions, investing in the most disadvantaged communities, and reforming the criminal law to reduce the structural biases that conflict theory documents. These implications are more demanding of political will and more distant from the operational practices of criminal justice agencies than the implications of individual-level theories, which is part of why structural criminology has had less direct influence on criminal justice policy than on the broader understanding of why crime persists at the levels it does in American society. The gap between what structural criminology establishes about the causes of crime and what political and institutional processes have produced in response is among the most important and most frustrating features of the criminological landscape. Closing that gap requires not only the continued production of rigorous structural criminological research but the sustained engagement with policy processes, political actors, and affected communities that translates structural knowledge into structural change. The evidence that structural conditions cause crime is sufficiently established to motivate action; what remains is the political will to act on it. Contemporary structural criminology — through its engagement with racial inequality, concentrated disadvantage, institutional imbalance, and the structural consequences of mass incarceration itself — provides the analytical framework for that action, and the empirical evidence that makes the case for structural change not merely as a moral aspiration but as a crime prevention investment whose returns the data clearly establish.
References
- Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x
- Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Roxbury.
- Chambliss, W. J., & Seidman, R. T. (1982). Law, order, and power (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.
- Clear, T. R. (2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. Oxford University Press.
- Durkheim, É. (1893/1984). The division of labour in society (W. D. Halls, Trans.). Free Press.
- Durkheim, É. (1897/1951). Suicide: A study in sociology (J. A. Spaulding & G. Simpson, Trans.). Free Press.
- Fajnzylber, P., Lederman, D., & Loayza, N. (2002). Inequality and violent crime. Journal of Law and Economics, 45(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1086/338347
- Hipp, J. R., & Kubrin, C. E. (2017). From the neighborhood to the city: How does the social ecology of a city shape crime rates across neighborhoods? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(3), 431–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427816671945
- Krivo, L. J., Peterson, R. D., & Kuhl, D. C. (2009). Segregation, racial structure, and neighborhood violent crime. American Journal of Sociology, 114(6), 1765–1802. https://doi.org/10.1086/597285
- Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084686
- Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2013). Crime and the American dream (5th ed.). Wadsworth.
- Morgan, S. L., & Thompson, A. (2021). Economic conditions and crime. In M. D. Krohn, N. Hendrix, G. P. Hall, & A. J. Lizotte (Eds.), Handbook on crime and deviance (2nd ed., pp. 151–174). Springer.
- Piquero, A. R., & Weisburd, D. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of quantitative criminology. Springer.
- Quinney, R. (1977). Class, state, and crime. David McKay.
- Rosenfeld, R., & Messner, S. F. (2021). Crime and the economy. SAGE.
- Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. University of Chicago Press.
- Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5328.918
- Sharkey, P. (2018). Uneasy peace: The great crime decline, the renewal of city life, and the next war on violence. W. W. Norton.
- Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press.
- Stansfield, R. (2021). Social structure and crime. In M. D. Krohn, N. Hendrix, G. P. Hall, & A. J. Lizotte (Eds.), Handbook on crime and deviance (2nd ed., pp. 127–150). Springer.
- Taylor, I., Walton, P., & Young, J. (1973). The new criminology: For a social theory of deviance. Routledge.
- Travis, J., Western, B., & Redburn, F. S. (Eds.). (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18613
- Unnever, J. D., & Gabbidon, S. L. (2011). A theory of African American offending: Race, racism, and crime. Routledge.
- Western, B. (2006). Punishment and inequality in America. Russell Sage Foundation.
- Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. University of Chicago Press.
- Young, J. (1999). The exclusive society: Social exclusion, crime and difference in late modernity. SAGE.