Henderson 1

David C. May

CRM 3603-51

Criminological Theory

Term Paper

Jennifer C. Henderson

Henderson 2

Introduction

The study of criminology involves many different theories, all attempting to understand

crime. Some theorists focus on the question of why individuals commit crime, while others

attempt to explain how society contributes in causing crime. Learning theorists try to explain

why individuals engage in crime. I chose the learning theory because I believe it is a valid

explanation of human behavior in general, as the main principle is that crime is learned through

interaction with others. The labeling theory takes a different approach, suggesting that societal

reaction causes people to engage in crime. The idea is that the label given to an individual as an

offender can create further deviance. I chose this theory because it takes the spotlight off of the

offender himself, and places it on society. Examination of both of these theories produces an

interesting study that can be applied to various crimes.

Learning Theories

Some of the major theorists associated with the learning theory are Edwin Sutherland and

Donald Cressey, Ronald Akers, and Elijah Anderson. Sutherland (2014) introduced the

differential association theory, stating that criminal behavior is a result of learning behavior and

values conducive to crime through interaction with delinquent peers. Akers (2014) expanded on

Sutherland’s theory, by introducing the concepts of differential association, definitions,

differential reinforcement, and imitation. Anderson (2014) took a macro-level stance on criminal

behavior in explaining how crime is learned through the subculture of violence in the streets.

Sutherland and Cressey (2014) believed that individuals learn certain behavior through

intimate relationships with others, like friends and family. They stated that intimate personal

groups are the main source of learning behaviors. Therefore, if a person typically associates with

Henderson 3

non-deviant, productive members of society, that individual is more likely to exhibit these

conforming behaviors as well. However, if the individual spends most time around people

engaged in deviant behavior, he is more likely to exhibit that behavior at some point also. For

example, if a child grows up with one parent in prison, the other a drug addict, and spends his

free time with friends engaging in criminal behavior, it is likely that he will eventually become a

criminal himself. Akers, Krohn, Kaduce, and Radosevich (1979) agreed with Sutherland and

Cressey (2014) that criminal behavior is primarily learned from close family and friends.

Sutherland and Cressey (2014) introduced nine propositions to explain the process of

their theory. The first states that criminal behavior is learned, rather than biologically inherited.

Secondly, the learning occurs through interaction and communication. This communication can

be verbal, or nonverbal through gestures. Thirdly, the learning occurs within intimate personal

groups. Sutherland and Cressey (2014) imply here that impersonal agencies such as media and

movies play a small role in influencing criminal behavior. The fourth states that when criminal

behavior is learned, it includes techniques of committing crime, which can be simple or

complicated, and also the specific direction of motives, drives, attitudes, and rationalizations.

The fifth proposal says that the specific direction of drives is learned from favorable or

unfavorable definitions of the legal codes. The sixth gives the basis of the theory, stating that a

person becomes delinquent when there is an excess of definitions favorable to violation of the

law over definitions unfavorable to violation of the law. The seventh proposal is that differential

associations vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. The eighth statement is that

learning criminal behavior is the same as learning any conforming behavior. Lastly, according to

Sutherland and Cressey (2014), criminal behavior cannot be explained by general needs and

values because non-criminal behavior is also an expression of those same needs and values.

Henderson 4

Akers (2014), like Sutherland, believed that crime is learned. He expanded on this idea in

his social learning theory by giving a broader perspective on explaining criminal behavior. He

added four major concepts: differential associations, definitions, differential reinforcement, and

imitation. According to Akers (2014), differential association is “the process whereby one is

exposed to normative definitions favorable or unfavorable to illegal or law-abiding behavior”

(142). In other words, individuals learn to perceive laws in a certain way, and decide whether to

follow these laws or not, depending on the people they associate with. Akers (2014) believed the

most important groups from which individuals learn are the primary groups like family and

friends. Hochstetler, Copes, and DeLisi (2002) attempted to explain why associating with

deviant peers influenced an individual’s behavior by stating, “Criminal situations and

opportunities are easily available to those who, by accident or management, surround themselves

with offenders.” This shows how spending time with deviant peers gives opportunities conducive

to crime that would maybe not be available otherwise. Akers (2014) referred to definitions as the

attitudes or meanings that an individual attaches to a certain behavior. He went on to explain that

the more one believes that a certain behavior is wrong, the less likely he is to exhibit that

behavior. Conversely, the more one approves of a behavior, the more likely he is to engage in it.

Positive definitions are beliefs that make an action morally permissible, and neutralizing

definitions justify the action. Differential reinforcement, according to Akers (2014) is “the

balance of anticipated or actual rewards and punishments that follow or are consequences of

behavior” (143). Reinforcement (rewards) for criminal behavior will increase the likelihood that

an individual will continue that behavior. Imitation is the engagement in certain behavior that has

been exhibited by others. Typically, imitation is more important in determining the initial deviant

act rather than the continuation of that behavior.

Henderson 5

Anderson (2014) took a macro-level learning perspective to explain a subculture of

violence in which individuals learn to engage in crime on the streets. He argued that there is a

“code of the street” in certain communities that causes people to conform to the valued norms,

encouraging deviant behavior. This code includes values that are centered on respect; an act of

disrespect must be responded to, and on the street, this typically involves violence. This study of

street subcultures was conclusive with social learning theories in that individuals are more likely

to engage in crime when they associate with criminal peers. Bennett and Brookman (2011)

agreed with Anderson’s study and stated that violence in response to disrespect is the rule in this

culture. In their studies, they found that people felt they had no other choice but to retaliate with

violence. To support Aker’s idea of reinforcement involved in learning, Anderson (2014) found

that violent acts were rewarded by members of the community. This reinforcement creates a

cycle of violence on the streets, handed down through generations.

Labeling Theories

The labeling theories take a new stance in criminology that focuses on the labeling of

offenders and society’s reaction to crime, rather than focusing on the behavior of the offender.

Three main contributors to the labeling theory were Edwin M. Lemert, John Braithwaite, and

Lawrence W. Sherman. Lemert (2014) introduced the idea of deviance as “primary” and

“secondary”, explaining the process in which one accepts the role of being a criminal.

Braithwaite (2014), in his article “Crime, Shame, and Reintegration”, explained his idea that

crime is higher when shaming is stigmatized and lower when shaming is reintegrative. Sherman

(2014) introduced his defiance theory, stating that defiance and greater levels of crime are the

result when offenders are poorly bonded to society and see the sanctions given as stigmatizing

and unfairly applied.

Henderson 6

Lemert’s discussion of primary and secondary deviance contributed to a study of

criminology that examines the process in which an offender reacts to the societal response of the

initial deviant act. This process includes a series of events, in which an initial deviant act is

employed, a punishment is given, and further deviance occurs, resulting in more punishments.

Eventually the individual comes to accept his role as a deviant and adjusts his lifestyle to suit this

role. Lemert (2014) recognized that the primary act of deviance can be the result of many

different factors, such as imitation of others, or psychological conditions. This primary deviance

does not necessarily change the way an individual views himself. However, society’s reaction to

this initial act determines the behavior following the act. Lemert (2014) labeled this reaction

“societal penalties”. Further primary deviation follows these social penalties, creating stronger

penalties and rejection towards the individual. The individual then may grow to be hostile

towards those doing the penalizing. The crisis is reached here, resulting in the labeling or

stigmatizing of the individual as deviant. As a result, the individual begins to accept his role as a

deviant, and changes behavior to adjust to his new role. This new self-identity adjustment is what

Lemert (2014) refers to as secondary deviance. In their study on the effects of labeling

delinquent behavior, Liberman, Kirk, and Kim (2014) found that the result of a negative societal

reaction caused labeled deviants to then associate with other delinquent peers, withdraw from

conventional activities, and engage in more deviant activities than would another individual that

had not been labeled a delinquent. This confirmed Lemert’s idea that secondary deviation was

the result of societal labeling.

John Braithwaite (2014) introduced his theory of Crime, Shame, and Reintegration,

which focuses on the results of reintegrative shaming versus stigmatizing shaming. His point was

that when shaming occurs as the result of a deviant act, whether the individual continues deviant

Henderson 7

behavior or not depends on the quality of the societal reaction. Braithwaite (2014) stated that

societies that practice reintegrative shaming have lower crime rates than those that practice

stigmatizing shaming. Ulmer (2001) agreed with this theory, arguing that intermediate sanctions

help prevent recidivism and preserve social bonds that reintegrate an offender back into

conventional society. He believed that sanctions would fail if they ignored rehabilitation and

reintegrative goals and focused solely on crime control. Braithwaite (2014) argued that the

consequences of stigmatization are involvement in criminal subcultures, as the offender attempts

to connect with others but is not accepted into conventional society. To support this idea,

Bernburg and Krohn (2003) suggested that “due to the widespread cultural imagery attached to

deviant statuses, people tend to assume that deviants possess undesirable traits allegedly

associated with their status” (1288-1289). Braithwaite (2014) incorporated the terms

“interdependency” and “communitarianism” into his theory, arguing that communitarian

societies exhibit collective efficacy. These societies are more likely to practice reintegrative

shaming by trying to rehabilitate the offender and bring him back into the community.

The Defiance Theory was introduced by Lawrence Sherman (2014) in his attempt to

explain individuals’ reactions to the sanctions given to them. Sherman (2014) believed that

defiance, and thus greater prevalence in crime, results when offenders have poor bonds to society

and when they view the sanctions given them as stigmatizing and unfair. Offenders will react

differently to sanctions depending on their social bonds and sensitivity to justice. He highlighted

four key concepts in the defiance theory. The first concept is the legitimacy the offender gives to

the individual giving the sanction. The interpretation of this legitimacy is largely determined by

the respect the individual feels he or she was given. For example, if a police officer detains a

man for suspicious activity, and holds him without explaining the situation, while speaking to

Henderson 8

him in a demeaning manner, this man may feel disrespected and respond with defiance in a way

he feels is self-defense. The second concept of the defiance theory is the strength of social bonds

the offender has to the community. The third concept is the level of shame the offender feels as a

result of a sanction. The last concept is that the source of pride an offender feels will determine

the amount of defiance displayed. This can be traced back to the idea of “respect” noted in

Anderson’s code of the street. If an individual feels disrespected, his pride may drive him to

resist authority. Sherman, like Braithwaite, was an advocate of restorative justice, believing that

integration back into society creates stronger social bonds, reducing crime.

Causal Logic and Human Nature

Theorists of differential association/social learning argue that human behavior is learned

rather than inherited. It is human nature to act similar to those one associates with, according to

learning theorists. Therefore, crime is the result of learning criminal behavior and techniques

from close friends and family. Learning theorists believe that when crime is learned, it is

determined because of the excess of favorable results of crime over the unfavorable results of

crime. Sutherland stated that the specific reason a person becomes a criminal is “because of an

excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of

law” (127). Social and non-social factors affect behavior, and crime occurs when deviant

behavior is positively reinforced. Exposure more often to criminal models than conforming

models creates a greater chance that an individual will engage in crime at some point.

Labeling theorists assume that it is human nature to react to the labels given us. They

argue that criminal behavior is the response when individuals are labeled as a deviant, and

conform to these delinquent roles in response. They do not focus on the initial deviant act that

Henderson 9

causes crime, but the recidivism. According to this theory, crime results when individuals

commit an act that is stigmatized to the point that they must adapt to their own label given by

society. The labeling of individuals forces them into companionship with similar peers, exposing

them to new values and ways of life. When an offender feels that his sanction is unjust, he will

most likely respond with defiance, creating further crime. Higher rates of crime in societies are

the result of the practice of stigmatizing shaming, which pushes individuals into association with

criminal peers that teach them new techniques of crime.

Comparison of Learning and Labeling Theories

The learning and labeling theories of criminology take different views on the cause of

crime. The basic premise of learning theories is that crime is learned through association with

criminal people. Labeling theorists argue that crime is the result of societal reaction towards

initial deviant behavior, putting less emphasis on the individual himself. However, these two

theories overlap in many instances. Either theory, in different situations, could explain the cause

of the pattern of criminal behavior. For example, according to labeling theorists, if an individual

commits an act that produces a stigmatizing societal reaction, this individual may feel that he has

no choice but to associate with others with the same label. He will find associates that may

engage in deviant behavior, teaching him new values conducive to crime. These associates may

also teach him new techniques of committing crime, enhancing his criminal career. In this case,

the result of the stigmatization of this individual resulted in his learning of criminal behavior,

supporting social learning theories. It can be concluded that in many cases, the behavior

exhibited in labeling theories leads to the behavior exhibited in learning theories, creating a

better explanation of general criminal behavior.

Henderson 10

A difference in these theories is that while learning theorists identify specific motivations

for crime, such as definitions favorable to violation of the law, labeling theorists fail to provide

an explanation for the original offense that led to further deviation. However, labeling theorists

recognize the role of stereotypes and how they influence deviant behavior, while learning

theorists largely ignore stereotypes as a factor.

While the labeling theories hold interesting ideas about the results of stigmatization

against offenders in producing crime, I believe that the learning theories offer a more thorough

explanation of crime. I believe this for several reasons. The first is that learning theories can be

applied to non-criminal behavior as well as criminal behavior, while labeling theories tend to

only provide an explanation for continued deviance. Learning theorists examine the process that

individuals go through in life, producing a theory of human behavior in general, and then apply it

to crime. Another problem with labeling theories is that they fail to explain the subcultures of

society as a factor that influences crime. Learning theorists recognize that different subcultures

have different values and practices that influence the way people are socialized. Therefore, in my

opinion, learning theories can be applied to a much larger portion of human population than can

the labeling theories.

Learning Theories Applied to Violence in Mexican Drug Cartels

Organized crime groups have long been known to use violence to inflict fear, make a

statement, and gain power. The drug cartels of Mexico are known as some of the most ruthless in

their acts of violence. It is not uncommon for the cartels to commit heinous crimes such as

beheadings, burning alive, dismemberment, and various forms of torture. Young (2012) gave

some examples of these incidents: “[B]etween April and May 2012, cartels decapitated fourteen

Henderson 11

people and left their headless bodies in front of city hall in Nuevo Laredo, hung nine people from

a bridge in that same city, left eighteen decapitated bodies in an area frequented by tourists near

Guadalajara, and unloaded forty-nine headless (and footless and handless) bodies out of a dump

truck near Monterrey, Mexico's industrial capital” (12). The victims of these crimes are not

limited to rival members of the cartels, however. The phenomenon of violence in Mexico has put

fear into the hearts of so many because of the number of victims who are innocent. Families of

cartel members, journalists, law enforcement, government officials, and everyday civilians are

all at risk of falling victim to the cartels. These organizations have successfully gained immense

power in Mexico, causing people to ally with them for protection. This includes law

enforcement, even on the federal level, which the cartels have infiltrated to maintain their power.

Martínez (2014) explained how the cartels use violence to intimidate locals in the areas they are

trying to control. “The maquila regions, such as Ciudad Juárez, have become the most violent

areas in the country. Workers not only have to deal with job insecurity and low wages, but also

face the daily threat of violence, torture, and disappearance” (36). Paul Gootenburg (2010)

explained how the launch against drug-trafficking by Mexico’s president in 2007 caused the

violence in Mexico to soar as the cartels fought for turf. According to Gootenburg (2010), over

26,000 people have been killed since 2007 as a result of the drug war.

I believe the learning theory can be applied to the explanation of violence in drug cartels.

These individuals involved in the cartels are not born violent; they learn violence. Many of the

families controlling the various cartels have been in control for generations. As one leader dies,

his son steps up to take his place. The sons of cartel bosses are trained from birth in the ways of

life of organized crime, and they typically have no other choice but to engage in this lifestyle.

Anderson’s code of the street is an example of the mindset of these cartels. One of the main

Henderson 12

causes of violence in these groups is to show power and gain respect. If a member of one cartel

disrespects a member of a rival cartel, retaliation is necessary. Anderson (2014) would argue that

these individuals have no other choice if they wish to reduce further victimization. The cartels

also recruit lower class boys into their organizations, often training them slowly in drug running

and theft, meanwhile teaching them techniques of violence. Paley (2011) described her interview

with a young boy who relied on the Gulf Cartel to survive. He claimed that he first sold drugs in

the fourth grade, and was recruited by the Gulf Cartel when he was 16. These children who are

recruited into the cartels believe they have no other choice but to join. In the case of Paley’s

interview with the unnamed boy, he claimed he had no way out. Anderson (2014) would argue

that this boy learned crime as a way to keep himself from being victimized.

Learning theorists would argue that these children are taught criminal behavior and

values conducive to crime, increasing the likelihood that they will engage in crime. Specifically,

these individuals display the main principle of differential association. They engage in violence

because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of the law (rewards from higher

ranking members) over definitions unfavorable to violation of the law (becoming victims of

violence themselves). Sutherland (2014) also stated that “when criminal behavior is learned, the

learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very

complicated, sometimes very simple…” (137). An example of this is shown in the article titled

“Mexico’s Massacre Era” by Gary Moore (2012). Moore (2012) explained how incarcerated

cartel members often learn new techniques of violent crime while in prison. This shows how

Mexican prisons serve as their own “training camps” of sorts for the cartels.

Policy Implications

Henderson 13

In my opinion, policy recommendations to reduce the amount of violence in drug cartels

must begin at the government level. Mexico and the U.S. must work together to create a system

that reduces the influence of the drug cartels. The government must make attempts to reduce the

corruption within it by making it known that corruption will not be tolerated. Officials have

learned that there are benefits to working with the cartels, so it must be taught now that there is

no mercy for those who accept bribes. The less power these organizations hold, the less attractive

they will seem to people wanting to join them. In addition, the law must be strictly enforced in

regards to violent crimes. Disappearances and murders must be investigated thoroughly by law

enforcement to deter the cartels from committing these crimes, and law enforcement officials

must be taught techniques to handle these situations. I also believe that cities would benefit from

programs implemented to get lower class children off the streets to keep them from being

recruited by cartels. These programs could provide alternative activities that teach the children

productive ways to spend their time, such as sports and group activities. If children are

surrounded by law abiding peers, they are more likely to learn values and attitudes that reduce

their chances of being involved in crime. If the government can make the citizens of Mexico feel

safer, it is more likely that they will come together to combat the violence inflicted by the drug

cartels.

Henderson 14

References

Akers, R. (2014) A social learning theory of crime. In F.T. Cullen & R. Agnew (Eds),

Criminological Theory: Past and Present (5thed) (140-152). New York: Oxford.

Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Kaduce, L. L., & Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and

deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory. American Sociological Review, 44,

636- 655.

Anderson, E. (2014) The code of the streets. In F. T. Cullen & R. Agnew (Eds), Criminological

Theory: Past and Present (5thed) (154-165). New York: Oxford.

Bennett, T., & Brookman, F. (2011). The effect of the 'code of the street' on street violence:

Challenges for crime prevention. International Review Of Law, Computers &

Technology, 25(1/2), 83-94. doi:10.1080/13600869.2011.594662

Bernburg, 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

Braithwaite, J. (2014) Crime, Shame, and Reintegration. In F. T. Cullen & R. Agnew (Eds),

Criminological Theory: Past and Present (5thed) (267-275). New York: Oxford.

Gootenberg, P. (2010). Blowback: The Mexican drug crisis. NACLA Report On The

Americas, 43(6), 7-12.

Hochstetler, A., Copes, H., & DeLisi, M. (2002). Differential association in group and solo

offending. Journal Of Criminal Justice,30(6), 559.

Henderson 15

Lemert, E. M. (2014). Primary and Secondary Deviance. In F. T. Cullen & R. Agnew (Eds),

Criminological Theory: Past and Present (5thed) (263-266). New York: Oxford.

Liberman, A. M., Kird, D. S., & Kim, K. (2014). Labeling Effects of First Juvenile Arrests:

Secondary Deviance and Secondary Sanctioning. Criminology, 52(3), 345-370.

doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12039

Munoz Martinez, H. (2014). Criminal violence and social control. NACLA Report On The

Americas, 47(1), 35-36.

Paley, D. (2011). Off the Map in Mexico. Nation, 292(21), 20-24

Sherman, L. W. (2014). Defiance Theory. In F. T. Cullen & R. Agnew (Eds), Criminological

Theory: Past and Present (5thed) (276-283). New York: Oxford.

Sutherland, E., Cressey, D. (2014) A theory of differential association. In F.T. Cullen & R.

Agnew (Eds), Criminological Theory: Past and Present (5thed) (136-139). New York:

Oxford.

Ulmer, J. T. (2001). Intermediate sanctions: A comparative analysis of the probability and

severity of recidivism. Sociological Inquiry, 71(2), 164-193.

Young, S. M. (2012). Going nowhere “fast” (or “furious”): The nonexistent U.S. firearms

trafficking statute and the rise of Mexican drug cartel violence. University Of Michigan

Journal Of Law Reform, 46(1), 1-67.