Crime is a feature of all societies at all times. Nevertheless, certain trends and patterns appear consistently at different times and places. In general, traditional societies—i.e., rural and agricultural societies that lack significant economic development—tend to have more violent crime and less property crime than economically developed societies. In traditional societies, violent crimes such as murder, rape, and assault may be fairly common and often are accepted and tolerated as an unavoidable part of ordinary life. As these societies modernize and become economically developed, violent acts become increasingly unacceptable as they also become increasingly rare. At the same time, while valuable property exists in traditional societies, it generally is not very portable—the most valuable property may include such things as land and animals—and thus there is little property crime. Ownership of valuable, portable goods expands rapidly with economic development, and with that expansion comes a vast increase in the stealing of those goods, along with a vast increase in the ways in which those goods can be stolen (e.g., stealing with a pen rather than with a gun).

Traditional societies also generally focus on responding to crime after it has occurred. Consistent with the view that crime is an ordinary and unavoidable part of life, there often are few expectations that responses to crime will influence future criminality. Rather, the responses attempt to return the society to a kind of balance that had been disrupted by the crime itself. In contrast, in modern, economically developed societies, crime policies increasingly focus on the achievement of future reductions in crime. That effort is limited by the need to retain a sense of legitimacy and fairness in crime-control policies. But, in general, support for crime policies largely depends on beliefs about their predicted ability to reduce crime.

In the 1970s in the United States, for example, rehabilitation programs were largely abandoned because of the widely held view that they did not reduce future criminal activity, and the death penalty was reinstated because of the pervasive sentiment that it did. By the beginning of the 21st century, however, support for capital punishment appeared to be weakening because of the belief that it did not reduce future criminality, and support for rehabilitation programs in prisons was increasing because of the belief that those programs worked. All such beliefs can be subjected to empirical testing by criminologists, who can determine whether and how the policies implemented in a certain area have affected the crime rate.

In addition to punishment policies, criminologists also have studied the effectiveness of various policing strategies. Influential research on police responses to domestic violence, for example, showed that arresting the offender tended to reduce future violence in most cases but to increase it in others. That research influenced the handling of domestic violence in many police departments.

More recently, criminologists have turned their attention to programs that attempt to prevent crime by reducing the likelihood that certain groups of people will engage in criminal behavior. Many biological, psychological, and social factors increase the risk of such behavior, and social policies that focus on the reduction or elimination of such factors have been shown to have long-term crime-reduction effects. For example, several successful programs directed at high-risk (e.g., low-income or unmarried) mothers have provided prenatal health care, home visits by nurses after the birth of the child, and parenting classes for the mother when the child is a toddler. These programs have been shown to reduce delinquent offending when the child becomes an adolescent. Similarly, educational programs that provide preschool to high-risk children have been shown to reduce offending by those children when they become adolescents and adults. Given the wide attention that studies of such programs have received, it is likely that criminological research will play an increasingly important role in the development of future crime policies.

Thomas J. Bernard

criminal justice, interdisciplinary academic study of the police, criminal courts, correctional institutions (e.g., prisons), and juvenile justice agencies, as well as of the agents who operate within these institutions. Criminal justice is distinct from criminal law, which defines the specific behaviours that are prohibited by and punishable under law, and from criminology, which is the scientific study of the nonlegal aspects of crime and delinquency, including their causes, correction, and prevention.

The field of criminal justice emerged in the United States in the second half of the 20th century. As the Supreme Court of the United States gradually expanded the rights of criminal defendants on the basis of the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, the gap between the actual performance of criminal justice agencies and what was legally required and legitimately expected of them began to grow. In the 1970s, as part of a broader effort to improve these agencies, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the U.S. Department of Justice provided grants for college study to thousands of criminal justice personnel, resulting in the creation of numerous criminal justice courses and programs at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. By the end of the 20th century, many colleges and universities offered bachelor’s degrees in criminal justice, and some offered master’s and doctoral degrees.

Research in criminal justice developed rapidly in the 1980s and ’90s, a result of the increasing number of academics interested in the field and the growing availability of government funding. At first, such studies consisted of qualitative descriptive analyses written by individual scholars and based on observations of particular criminal justice agencies. As the discipline matured, research gradually became broader and more quantitative. Many scholars focused on evaluating the effectiveness of specific criminal justice policies in combating crime. Some studies, for example, examined whether the arrest of a physically abusive spouse tended to prevent future incidents of battering or whether prison rehabilitation programs reduced rates of recidivism. Other studies compared the effectiveness of different programs aimed at the same result—e.g., sending youthful offenders to “boot camps” or to more-traditional juvenile institutions.

Since the 1980s, criminal justice policy in the United States has been profoundly influenced by scholarly research in the field. For example, community policing, a strategy designed to prevent crime and improve citizens’ overall quality of life by assigning officers to permanent neighbourhood patrols, originated in the recommendations of criminal justice scholars. Criminal justice research also influenced the widespread restructuring of sentencing and parole decisions in the 1980s and ’90s. Formerly, judges and parole boards had a great degree of discretion in making such decisions, which gave rise to disparities in sentences. Sentencing and parole guidelines reduced this disparity, but it also contributed to large increases in imprisonment. In the early 21st century a report in the United States on programs that proved effective in preventing crimes, commissioned by the U.S. Congress and published by the National Institute of Justice, generated support for the notion that such programs should be “evidence-based” (i.e., proven effective through systematic research and evaluation).

Not all criminal justice research has produced fruitful results. For example, in the 1980s and ’90s numerous studies attempted to develop methods for predicting which offenders were most likely to commit future crimes. The premise was that those most likely to become habitual offenders should be incarcerated for longer periods, if not indefinitely. However, attempts to establish which offenders were likely to commit future crimes proved unsuccessful. It also was problematic because it appeared to be inconsistent with the constitutional rights of offenders, punishing them for what they might do in the future rather than for what they had actually done in the past. Outside the United States, criminal justice researchers are more closely tied to existing criminal justice agencies (i.e., tied to police agencies, courts, or correctional systems), helping to implement their policies rather than independently researching them.

Thomas J. Bernard