Course Description:
The purpose of this course is to understand criminological thought from its inception to the present day by exploring its ideas and examining how theories are tested.

Text:
1) Paternoster, Raymond & Bachman, Ronet (Eds) (2001). Explaining criminals and crime: Essays in contemporary criminological theory. Roxbury: Los Angeles.
2) Additional on-line articles are assigned throughout the semester.

Course Requirements:
CRJU 8810 is a graduate course, meaning that students are required to be active learners. Students will be asked to read and examine important ideas and articles outside of the classroom and to participate fully in class while we dissect these ideas and tests. Throughout the semester, the instructor might assign certain topics or chapters to individuals in the class for them to present the following week. Additionally, students will be required to write a weekly summary of a theory being covered that week and an article testing that theory. Finally, students will be tested on the theories and articles covered.

Evaluation and Grading:
The following break-down will be used to tabulate students' final grades. Each exam is worth 25% of your final grade. The weekly assignments are worth 50%. Each week I will provide instructions on what is due for the following week. Attendance is mandatory to do well in this course. Two unexcused absences will lead to a letter grade reduction. Three unexcused absences will lead to an F in the course.

The following grading scale will be used:
A = 100-90; B = 89-80; C = 79-70; F = 69-0

Assignment Calendar:

August 21st: First night!!!!! Tonight, we will discuss the expectations of the class and also discuss what is a theory, the parts of a theory, and how we can tell a good theory from a bad one.

August 28th: We are going to meet in the Math Computer Lab and examine crime facts and trends found in the UCR and NCVS.

September 4th: We are going to learn about the classical school, including their major ideas, goals, and biggest impact on criminological thought (i.e. deterrence theory). Students should read p. 11-42 and the following two articles:
1) Pogarsky, G., KiDeuk, K., & Paternoster, R. (2005). Perceptual change in the national youth survey: Lessons for deterrence theory and offender decision-making. Justice Quarterly, 22(1), 1-29.
2) Nagin, D.S., & Pogarsky, G. (2001). Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: Theory and evidence. Criminology, 39(4), 865-891.

September 11th: Biological positive thought will be analyzed. We will discuss how the Positive School differs from the Classical School as well as some of the early influential thinkers of this school, namely Lombroso. Finally, we will briefly examine some recent genetic research. Students should read p. 47-55 and the following two articles
1) Walters, G.D. (1992). A meta-analysis of the gene-crime relationship. Criminology, 30(4), 595-613.
2) Wright, J.P., & Beaver, K.M. (2005). Do parents matter in creating self-control in their children? A genetically informed test of Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory of low self-control. Criminology, 43(4), 1169-1202.

September 18th: Tonight, we start covering social control theories, one of the most influential categories of criminological thought. The focus of this class will be discussing what is a social control theory and analyzing Hirschi's social bond theory. Students should read p. 73-78 and the following two articles:
1) Costello, B.J., & Vowell, P.R. (1999). Testing control theory and differential association: A reanalysis of the Richmond Youth Project Data. Criminology, 37(4), 815-842.
2) Felson, R.B. & Staff, J. (2006). Explaining the academic performance - delinquency relationship. Criminology, 44(2), 299-320.

September 25th: Routine activities theory will be the focus of tonight's course. We will discuss the origins of the theory, how it has evolved, and discuss whether it applies to computer crime. Students should read p. 43-46 and the following two articles:
1) Mustaine, E.E. & Tewksbury, R. (1998). Predicting risks of larceny theft victimization: A routine activity analysis using refined lifestyle measures. Criminology, 36(4), 829-857.
2) Holt, T. & Bossler, A.M. (forthcoming). Assessing the applicability of routine activities theory to explain cybercrime victimization.

October 2nd: Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime (self-control theory), one of the most influential theories of the last 20 years, will be analyzed tonight. Students should read p. 79-96 and the following two articles:
1) Piquero, A.R., MacDonald, J., Dobrin, A., Daigle, L.E., & Cullen, F.T. (2005). Self-control, violence offending, and homicide victimization: Assessing the general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21(1), 55-71.
2) Burt, C.H., Simons, R.L., & Simons, L.G. (2006). A longitudinal test of the effects of parenting and the stability of self-control: Negative evidence for the general theory of crime. Criminology, 44(2), 353-396.

October 9th: In the last class before Test 1, we will discuss life-course criminology, primarily Sampson and Laub's age-graded theory of informal social control and Moffitt's idea of adolescence-limited delinquency. Students should read p. 97-112 and the following two articles:
1) Maume, M.O. , Ousey, G.C., & Beaver, K. (2005). Cutting the grass: A reexamination of the link between marital attachment, delinquent peers and desistance from marijuana use. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21(1), 27-53.
2) Piquero, A.R. & Brezina, T. (2001). Testing Moffitt's account of adolescence-limited delinquency. Criminology, 39(2), 353-370.

October 16th: Test 1!!!!!!!!!!!!

October 23rd: Tonight, we move away from explaining crime at the individual level and discuss how community characteristics affect crime rates. We will analyze the ideas of the Chicago School, how they developed social disorganization theory, and whether their ideas apply to cities today. Students should read p. 113-135 and the following two articles:
1) Nielsen, A.L., Lee, M.T., & Martinez, R. (2005). Integrating race, place and motive in social disorganization theory: Lessons from a comparison of black and Latino homicide types in two immigrant destination cities. Criminology, 43(3), 837-872.
2) Barnett, C., & Mencken, F.C. (2002). Social disorganization theory and the contextual nature of crime in nonmetropolitan counties (countries according to Ebscohost). Rural Sociology, 67(3), 372-393.

October 30th: We continue our discussion of theories that address crime at the aggregate level. We will analyze the major ideas of Messner and Rosenfeld's institutional anomie theory and discuss what level of data is needed to test it.
1) Chamlin, M.B. & Cochran, J.K. (1995). Assessing Messner and Rosenfeld's Institutional Anomie Theory: A Partial Test. Criminology, 33(3), 411-429.
2) Jensen, G.F. (1996). Comment on Chamlin and Cochran. Criminology, 34(1), 129-131.
3) Chamlin, M.B. & Cochran, J.K. (1996). Reply to Jensen. Criminology, 34(1), 133-134.
4) Stucky, T.D. (2003). Local Politics and Violence Crime in US Cities. Criminology, 41(4), 1101-1135.

November 6th: In tonight's course, we discuss how Robert Agnew transformed traditional strain theories at the aggregate level and adapted them into an individual-level theory, namely Agnew's general strain theory. Students should read p. 161-172 and the following two articles:
1) Jang, S.J. (2007). Gender differences in strain, negative emotions, and coping behaviors: A general strain theory approach. Justice Quarterly, 24(3), 523-553.
2) Neff, J.L. & Waite, D.E. (2007). Male versus female substance abuse patterns among incarcerated juvenile offenders: Comparing strain and social learning variables. Justice Quarterly, 24(1), 106-132.

November 13th: We will discuss the most prominent theory of the 20th century (Sutherland's differential association theory) and the most important modification of it (Akers' social learning theory). Students should read p. 175-206 and the following two articles:
1) Rebellon, C.J., & Manasse, M. (2004). Do 'bad boys" really get the girls? Delinquency as a cause and consequence of dating behavior among adolescents. Justice Quarterly, 21(2), 355-389.
2) Ellickson, P.L., Collins, R.L., Hambarsoomians, K., & McCaffrey, D.F. (2005). Does alcohol advertising promote adolescent drinking? Results from a longitudinal assessment. Addiction, 100(2), 235-246.

November 20th: Before we go home to share turkey with family and friends, we will discuss labeling theory (the idea that punishing juveniles actually increases their probability of committing more crime because of various reasons). Students should read p. 211-250 and the following two articles:
1) Sweeten, G. (2006). Who will graduate? Disruption of high school education by arrest and court involvement. Justice Quarterly, 23(4), 462-480.
2) Benburg, J.G. & Krohn, M.D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41(4), 1287-1318.

November 27th: The final theory we are going to cover this semester is an integrated theory that argues "control" should be the central unifying concept in criminological theory. This theory is Charles Tittle's control balance theory. Students should read p. 315-334, another article provided at a later date, and the following two articles:
1) Piquero, A.R. & Hickman, M. (1999). An empirical test of Tittle's control balance theory. Criminology, 37(2), 319-341.
2) Bossler, A.M. (forthcoming). An empirical test examining Tittle's control balance desirability.

December 4th: Open date

December 11th: FINAL EXAM

Subject-to-Change Clause:
This syllabus is subject to change at the discretion of the instructor to accommodate instructional and/or student needs. Changes in the syllabus will be noted during class sessions. It is not the responsibility of the instructor to notify students who miss class of changes in the syllabus. It is the student's responsibility to be aware of changes in the course by attending class every period.