Essential Criminology (2nd ed.). Mark M. Lainer and Stuart Henry. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2004, pp. xiv, 430.

10.1177/0734016805282750 Criminal Book Review Justice Essay Review Review Essay Theoretical Criminology Criminal Justice Review Volume 30 Number 2 September 2005 1-2005 Georgia State University Research Foundation, Inc. 10.1177/0734016805282750 http://cjr.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com Kieran F. McCartan Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application (4th ed.). Ronald L. Akers and Christine S. Sellers. Los Angeles: Roxbury, 2004, pp. xiv, 354. Essential Criminology (2nd ed.). Mark M. Lainer and Stuart Henry. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2004, pp. xiv, 430. Criminal Justice and Criminology: Concepts and Terms. James F. Anderson, Nancie Mangles, Adam Langsam, and Laronistine Dyson. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2002, pp. 368. It can be argued that criminology is one of the fastest growing subjects of the past decade (Moyer, 2001), which has resulted in the production of a plethora of introductory criminology texts. The outcome of this growth is that there is no one definitive text existing and each of the multitude proclaim to offer new as well as diverse perspectives on the existing literature. This assortment of texts indicates that the reader has a wider range of potential choices than ever before. As such, the three texts at the core of this review (Essential Criminology, 2nd ed., Lanier & Henry, 2004; Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation and Application, 4th ed., Akers & Sellers, 2004; Criminal Justice and Criminology; Concepts and Terms, Anderson, Mangles, Langsam, & Dyson, 2002) are also attempting expose the full expanse of criminological theory. This review will attend to the central issues of criminological theory, which the three books specifically address (i.e., what is criminology and what are the main criminological theories?), and then contrast how they fulfill this singularly as well as comparatively. In the first instance, the three texts deal with criminology in a general sense, with Akers and Sellers and Lainer and Henry focusing directly on the impact of its theoretical underpinnings and with Anderson et al. dealing with criminology and the criminal justice system. It therefore seems appropriate to begin this review by addressing the core issue of all three: What is criminology? However, this question does not have a simple, straightforward answer and has been heavily debated within the literature since Garofalo first coined the term criminology in 1885 (Lanier & Henry). Garofalo argued that criminology is a scientific concern with crime, which has remained the central definition of the subject since. As criminology evolved as a subject, so too did perceptions of what the subject should consist of, how it should function, and what, if any, impact it should have on public policy. As a reflection of this diversity, the three texts specify different but similar views of criminology. Lainer and 1

2 Criminal Justice Review Henry believe that criminology s core concepts are definitions of crime, the causes of crime, the statistical analysis of crime, and the study criminal activity, criminals, and their victims. Akers and Sellers indicate that criminology reveals why people conform to or deviate from social and legal norms (p. 2), whereas Anderson et al. define criminology as a scientific approach to understand criminal behaviour (p. 296) that focuses around the law. These definitions seem to place the authors in general consensus with other academics in the field (Maguire, Morgan, & Reiner, 2002; Soothill, Peelo, & Taylor, 2002; Yewkes & Leatherby, 2002), indicating that criminology is not limited to one specific concept but rather that it involves all forms of crime (white-collar crime, gang violence, sexual abuse) as well as crime s resulting offshoots (Government policy, the criminal justice system) and that these can change throughout time and space. This academic open mindedness removes the borders to criminological theory, allowing it too develop naturally and evolve as a subject but conversely making it difficult to concisely package as a simple concept. This leads us to the second central theme of the three texts, which is as follows: What defines theory and what are criminology s central theories? Akers and Sellers state that theory if developed properly, is about real situations, feelings, experience and human behaviour. An effective theory helps us to make sense of facts that we already know and that can be tested against new facts (p. 1). The authors also work to dispel the idea that theory is merely ivory-tower or armchair speculation (p. 1). This popular criticism is often leveled at criminological theory, which is derided by some authors for not adequately embodying the true definition of theory (Moyer, 2001). Other authors perceive criminological theory as being out of touch with reality, as being irrelevant, and as being desire that the motivation behind the theory needs to shift from an all-or-nothing philosophy to a cumulative, falsifiable approach to be relevant (Bernard, 1990). This paradigm shift was part of the mandate that lead to a backlash within theoretical criminology and the development of a new criminology that is more critical of existing theories and more grounded in the actualities of reality (Walton & Young, 1998). Akers and Sellers defend contemporary theorizing by stating that it has a vital and relevant role in current criminological thought, whereas Lainer and Henry agree with the importance of theory in criminology but believe that there needs to be a greater emphasis on theoretically grounded research in current academic criminology. As both texts (Akers & Sellers; Lainer & Henry) clearly demonstrate, there are a multitude of theoretical perspectives in criminology that explain criminal behavior in terms of biological, psychological, economic, ecological, and gender and social factors. There texts also reveal that as criminology has evolved, different theories and theorists have moved in and out of fashion. Lombrosbo is one example, as indicted by Lainer & Henry, whose criminal anthropological theories where originally accepted and widely propagated at the end of the 19th century but were later dismissed in the mid-20th century. However, biological explanations of crime have been relaunched under the terminology of biosocial criminology and, as a result, have made some inroads into popular criminology. As yet, biosocial criminology has not reached the renowned levels that criminal anthropology once held. The two dominantly theoretical texts (Lanier & Henry; Akers & Sellers) guide the reader from internal theoretical explanations of crime (i.e., the personal and individual) to external criminological theory (i.e., social and cultural). They expound the complete span of criminology s ideological development from the classical, criminal anthropology schools to the psychological, social, ecological, economical, feminist, and integrative schools of thought. From this historical route through criminological theory, the reader is able to appreciate that

Book Review Essay 3 as criminology developed, new theoretical perspectives emerged from it (feminist theory, left realism, and constitutive theory) and that these worked to counter as well as coexist with existing theories. The reader can therefore recognize that criminology is an adaptive and emergent subject. The aforementioned texts follow the same theoretical structure as many existing introductory criminology texts (Cote, 2002; Moyer, 2001) as well as the theoretical chapters in more comprehensive volumes (Maguire et al., 2002). As such, the texts may not introduce any radically new theoretical perspectives or definitions of criminology, but they do inspire debate and argument, which Lainer and Henry view as being an essential foundation of criminology. Criminology is a multidisciplinary subject that has been synthesized from a diverse range of other academic and social subjects (e.g., psychology, history, sociology, politics, law, economics, and anthropology). This adaptive subject incorporates these various viewpoints and combines them into perhaps one of the most interactive of all the social sciences. This process is seen by some theorists in positive terms (Akers & Sellers; Lainer & Henry; Soothill et al., 2002), whereas others view it negatively and condemn the subject for not appropriately answering what they believe are its core questions (Cohen, 1988). Cohen (1988) argues that the concept of criminology is a paradoxical even a flawed ideal for its claim to exist as an autonomous, multidisciplinary subject (p. 4). He believes that this means the subject is parasitic as well as colonial (Cohen, 1988, p. 4), indicating that criminology uses ideas from existing subjects as well as pushes their defined boundaries of knowledge to new levels, thereby intimating that criminology can use existing academic disciplines (e.g., law, psychology, sociology, politics) as well as be flexible enough to adapt to newly developing fields (e.g., media studies, computer science, technology). As such, criminology becomes a funnel for other social sciences to pass through and a meeting place for them to discuss the vital issues of individual and social deviance. This process makes criminology a very public and widely debated subject (Lainer & Henry, 2004, p. 16), which is quite fitting because it gives credence to ideas of social constructionism (Berger & Luckman, 1984) and the reassurance that even the most seemingly diverse subjects can find common ground. This interactionism is typified by the relatively new field of cultural criminology (Ferrell, 1999), which unfortunately the three books fail to address. It should be noted that the three books in question are all American in nature, and America is commonly seen as a cultural melting pot, it could be argued that criminology is the cultural melting pot of the social sciences. This analogy suggests that America maybe one of the best laboratories to study criminology, for it is as socially and culturally diverse as criminology is academically diverse. However, it is important to realize that American research may not be applicable elsewhere in the world, especially in countries that do not have populations with the same social or cultural construction (e.g., Northern Europe, Africa, Middle East). This cultural singularity is starting to change with the spread of globalization, and other countries are starting to become more multicultural, socially diverse, and internationally aware (Giddens, 2002). The three texts in question here, however, all cite opinions and examples that are all American in origin (faith-based restorative justice Akers & Sellers, chapter 7; school violence case study Lainer & Henry, chapter 2; and the majority of criminal justice references in Anderson et al. are only applicable in the United States). This American orientation does not diminish the creditability or worth of the material used, but it does indicate that the texts may need to come with a potential health warning for use outside North America.

4 Criminal Justice Review As indicated earlier, there are various perceptions of what criminology is, therefore generating a multitude of theoretical viewpoints that can be very overwhelming, confusing, and disorienting for the first-time student, thereby raising the question of how well do the three books aid the student to understand the central themes of criminology. The texts by Akers and Sellers as well as Lainer and Henry supply coherent guides to criminological theory. They are well written and generally cover the same theoretical material, progressing from classical theory to peacemaking and integrative theory. However, Lainer and Henry do so in broader strokes, with a more accessible format, making it easier to read and understand. These authors state that the first edition of the text was originally designed for undergraduates, but with the second edition, they have expanded it for master s students as well. However, the book excels on both levels, making it a good general introductory text. Lainer and Henry provide a comprehensive timeline of criminological theory in chapter 1, which also acts as a guide to the complete text and summarizes the book in a concise fashion. Their chapter on integrative theory (i.e., the conclusion) shows how all the seemingly diverse strands of criminological theory (classical, biological, psychological, social, and economic) can fit together (integrated systems theory). Lainer and Henry also contextualize all the theories by providing real-life case studies to introduce them (e.g., the story of Phil to explain anomie [chapter 9], the example of Jack Henry Abbot to explain socialization theories [chapter 7], and the history of capitalism in America to discuss Marxist/radical theories [chapter 10]). Unlike some other introductory texts that attempt to give a complete picture of the whole continuum of criminology (Jones, 2001; Maguire et al., 2002; Yewkes & Letherby, 2002), this text solely focuses on the main theoretical perspectives of criminological. As such, Essential Criminology more than adequately fulfils its objective, and the reader comes away with good grounding in the relevant knowledge. The approach taken by Akers and Sellers directly focuses on the practical applications of criminological theory, thus resulting in a more subject-specific and grounded book than that of Lainer and Henry. Akers and Sellers also write in a stricter academic style than do Lainer and Henry. The benefit of the Akers and Sellers text is that the reader is able to see the full implications of theory, whereas this is only hinted at in the Lainer and Henry text. This indepth perspective insures that the reader fully understands if and why a theory may or may not work. Each chapter in this text progresses though a process of identifying theory, any expansions of said theory, the relevant research, and its potential as well as practical policy implications. This approach allows the text to adequately highlight the importance of the theory, research, and policy nexus, which indicates how all three aspects can stimulate or emerge from each other (Moyer, 2001). Akers and Sellers concentrate on the practical and policy implications of theory more so than Lainer and Henry, who in their text state the existence of the different theoretical perspectives before contextualizing and evaluating them. Akers and Sellers indicate how all three processes and stages of the theory, research, and policy interact and further criminology as a subject. Akers and Sellers also demonstrate why some theories develop in certain directions as well as how seemingly unrelated theoretical underpinnings and policy implications are actually related, more so than Lainer and Henry. One of the most interesting examples of this is in chapter 7, where the authors discuss the effectiveness of faith-based restorative justice programs. The chapter moves from discussing labeling theory and adaptations of it to the impact of social labeling, Restorative Justice, and reintegrative shaming, indicating how prevalent restorative justice is in the current criminological literature (Eschholz, 2003) as well as how

Book Review Essay 5 religious-based doctrine is being used to aid in the treatment of offenders. However, these, similar to all of the practical examples of theoretical use, are American based (boot camps, chapter 2; the Oregon Social Learning Centre, chapter 5; and mobilization for youth, chapter 8) while ignoring non-american policy and practice (the use of CCTV PLS WRITE OUT to reduce crime in Newcastle, UK [Brown, 1995]; the use of M.A.P.P.A s PLS WRITE OUT to deal with sex offenders in England and Wales [Wood, Kemshaw, & Mackenzie, 2004]). The American orientation of this text is not particularly problematic for the readers, but it does limit the impact of the book on an international audience. It is important to remember that not all cultures and societies view criminology and its criminal policy implications in the same way. The two dominantly theoretical texts (Akers & Sellers; Lainer & Henry) both build off of each other, giving diverse viewpoints on theory and its implications. The authors offer their own views on criminology and its applicability; as such, they equip the reader with the vital knowledge needed to tackle its theoretical underpinnings. As comprehensive as they are individually, this intensifies when they are combined, for they demonstrate the full range of criminological theory. The authors demonstrate the importance and value of theory as well as the applicability of academic research in the real world, which at times can be difficult to determine. These texts help to crystallize current thinking in criminology and add some fresh perspectives to the existing material, which will hopefully encourage debate. The Anderson et al. text is not as conceptually intertwined as the other two previously mentioned texts are with each other, indicating that it exists independently and that it has more of an indirect impact on the student. This text would be best suited for a criminal justice degree pathway, for the criminology section is not as detailed or as expansive as in the other two texts. The criminal justice system section, which is heavily Americanized, dominates the book (278 pages out of a total 367 pages). As such, its core concepts are not as easily transferable internationally as the core concepts of the other two texts. For example, the United Kingdom has a different criminal justice system than the United States, and therefore, a lot of the terminology would not be as useful or relevant in this context (McConville & Wilson, 2002). This difference in the criminal justice system is not as problematic as it first seems, but again, similar to Akers and Sellers, it does take away from the text s international generalizability. The book does cover the core aspects of criminology, theory, policy, and the (American) criminal justice system; on this front, it achieves what it sets out to do. However, when compared to similar texts of this nature (e.g., the Sage Dictionary of Criminology, McLaughlin & Muncie, 2001), the current text offers more to American criminology than it does to criminology in general. When initially reading these books, I read the Akers and Sellers text first. On later consideration, I believe that students would get more from this book if they read it after the Lainer and Henry text, as this would provide them with a good grounding in the relevant theory literature. The Anderson et al. book can be read in conjunction with the other two, as its role seems to be to act as a quick reference guide to the other two texts more detailed explanations of the theoretical perspectives. All three texts fulfill their purpose and are sufficiently diverse to justify the use of all of them in attempting to gain a good grasp of the breath and depth of theoretical criminology. They individually and collectively work to reinforce the concept of criminology as a multidisciplinary subject, which is already prevalent in literature (Maguire et al., 2002; Moyer, 2001; Soothill et al., 2002; Yewkes & Leatherby, 2002) but is important enough to warrant reinforcing. This multidisciplinary approach has always been at the heart

6 Criminal Justice Review of criminological research and theorizing. This approach may be a lesson that other social sciences could possibly learn from criminology. Criminology is possibly the most interdisciplinary and adaptive of all the social sciences, for its impact as well as its definition crime and its subsidiaries are not easily labeled or narrowly defined. It is this diversity and open mindedness that enables criminology to attract so many new students to its courses every year. References Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1984). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Bernard, T. J. (1990). Twenty years of testing theories: What have we learned and why? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27, 325-347. Brown, B. (1995). Closed circuit television in town centres: Three case studies (Crime Prevention and Detection Series, Paper 73). London: Home Office. Cohen, S. (1988). Against criminology. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Cote, S. (2002). Criminological theories: Bridging the past to the future. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eschholz, S. (2003). Book review essay: Restorative justice: Social movement, theory, and practice. Criminal Justice Review, 28, 146-153. Ferrell, J. (1999). Cultural criminology. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 395-418. Giddens, A. (2002). Runaway world: How globalisation is reshaping our lives (2nd ed.). London: Profile. Jones, S. (2001). Criminology (2nd ed.). PLS PROVIDE CITY, UK: Butterworths. Maguire, M., Morgan, R., & Reiner, R. (2002). The Oxford handbook of criminology (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. McConville, M., & Wilson, G. (2002). The handbook of the criminal justice system. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. McLaughlin, E., & Muncie, J. (2001). The Sage dictionary of criminology. London: Sage. Moyer, I. L. (2001). Criminological theories: Traditional and non-traditional voices and themes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Soothill, K., Peelo, M., & Taylor, C. (2002). Making sense of criminology. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Walton, P., & Young, J. (1998). The new criminology revisited. London: Macmillan. Wood, J., Kemshaw, H., & Mackenzie, G. (2004, PLS PROVIDE MONTH). Beyond public protection It s everyone s responsibility now. Paper presented at the British Society of Criminology Conference, PLS PROVIDE CITY. Yewkes, J., & Leatherby, G. (2002). Criminology: A reader. London: Sage.