Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper tries to define “criminology” as every activity of construction of meaning that leads social actors to construct theories of crime in order to explain criminal acts, which, particularly in some cases, give rise to high amounts of anxiety in society. From this point of view, scientific, official criminology constitutes just the top level of criminological thinking, and two other levels of criminology can be constructed: first, popular criminology, constituted by the commonly held beliefs spread in society about crime, crime causation, the utility of punishment and criminal treatment; secondly, “institutional” criminology, constituted by the beliefs that social institutions produce, each in its own field, in performing their different tasks: the exemples are given of judgement and sentencing (courts criminology), and reporting of news and shaping of public opinions (mass media); but even a fictional criminology could be imagined, constituted by the body of knowledge produced by novelists and writers, from Sherlock Holmes to nowadays’ authors.
Some examples will be made showing the intersections and influences of one criminology upon the others, as well circular effects.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Scientific knowledge is produced, in part, by the development and testing of theory. Theories gain prominence and lend influence ostensibly when they stand up against empirical observations. Sociologists of knowledge have noted, however, that theories may also go in and out of fashion due to other, “extra-scientific” factors. Drawing from articles published in Criminology between 1964 and 2007, we investigate trends and patterns in theoretical citation, theoretical development, and the relationships between criminological theory and authorship, methodological approaches, and other factors over time.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Conventional criminology is generally defined within the social processes of: 1) the making of the law, 2) the breaking of the law, and 3) the reaction toward the breaking of the law (Sutherland and Cressey, 1960). Here, we make use of this classic orientation to develop a “criminology of war” perspective. Specifically, we investigate war within the contexts of law and rule making, law breaking, victimization, and overall human rights concerns (including human rights violations i.e., crimes in war and war crimes). In the end, we argue that the field of criminology tends to shy away from the study of war. So stated, the intent of this work is to outline a general framework from which “war” may be studied as a criminological convention.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The purpose of the current study is to better understand the levels of punitiveness among college students. This study intends to add to the current literature by gaining a better understanding of levels of punitiveness across discipline. More specifically, it intends to examine any differences in punitiveness between criminology and non-criminology majors. Given that most criminology majors will be working as professionals within the criminal justice system after graduation, it is important to assess their beliefs about punishment. For example, levels of punitiveness may influence their perceptions and actions towards offenders, victims, and criminal justice policies while working in the system. If criminology majors are entering the workforce with elevated levels of punitiveness they may be more likely to support, implement, and favor more punitive crime policies. Results from a questionnaire survey on this topic will be discussed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: There has been a growing interest in the historical development of criminology(ies) throughout the world. This paper examines the development of criminology in Taiwan (Republic of China) using both questionnaire and interview data. Textbooks, institutional development, and research activity are taken as proxy measures of a criminological tradition. Beginning with criminology in Republican China (1929-1949), the article explores the key features of change in criminology against the background of Taiwan’s own particular adoption of social, political and economic ‘modernisation’. Foreign influence and the contemporary meaning of ‘indigenous’ are considered. The article ends with a research agenda for a grounded historical sociology of criminology on Taiwan; key identified research questions relate to sponsorship, research priorities and the production of criminological knowledge; the reception of research by policy communities and practitioners; the relationship between criminological knowledge and politics; and the processes of selective appropriation.