criminological research articles

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Criminology articles from across Nature Portfolio

Latest research and reviews.

An empirical investigation of emotion and the criminal law: towards a “criminalization bias”?

• Jozef N. Coppelmans
• Fieke M. A. Wagemans
• Lotte F. van Dillen

Assessing Korean children’s comprehension of legal terms and roles across age groups

• Jaekyung Ahn

The prevalence and risk factors of conduct disorder among juvenile delinquents in China

• Qinhong Xie

Utilising the communication for development approach to prevent online child trafficking in Thailand

• Naparat Kranrattanasuit

Sex differences in the mediation role of political mobilization between the search for status and risk-taking behaviors in adolescents

• Natalia del Pino-Brunet
• Javier Salas-Rodríguez
• Luis Gómez-Jacinto

Unraveling the influence of income-based ambient population heterogeneity on theft spatial patterns: insights from mobile phone big data analysis

News and Comment

Workplaces must respond better to the bullied boss

Bullying comes in many forms, including when subordinates bully a manager. Sara Branch argues that workplaces should implement policies to combat all types of bullying.

• Sara Branch

The perils of military policing

Many policymakers turn to the military to reduce crime. Yet, evidence describing the effects of military policing is nearly nonexistent. Blair and Weintraub evaluate the effects of military policing on crime and human rights violations in Cali, Colombia. Their results suggest crime incidence and insecurity perceptions did not decrease, which leaves lessons for the design and implementation of security policies.

• Santiago Tobon

The promises and perils of crime prediction

A new algorithmic tool developed by Rotaru and colleagues can more accurately predict crime events in US cities. Predictive crime modelling can produce powerful statistical tools, but there are important considerations for researchers to take into account to avoid their findings being misused and doing more harm than good.

• Andrew V. Papachristos

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: a test for international law

Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine showcases substantial challenges, especially to international humanitarian and criminal law and human rights. It also calls for an urgent revisiting of the role of the United Nations Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security, and of the security architecture in Europe and worldwide.

• Sergey Sayapin

Global crime trends during COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a natural experiment capable of answering a vital question: have stay-at-home orders impacted global crime trends? A new study by Nivette and colleagues demonstrates that crime largely decreased around the globe during COVID-19 stay-at-home orders—a finding which likely carries international implications for crime policy.

• John H. Boman IV
• Thomas J. Mowen

A healing-centered approach to preventing urban gun violence: The Advance Peace Model

• Jason Corburn
• DeVone Boggan
• Brian Muhammad

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Search Menu

Advance articles

• Featured Content
• Author Guidelines
• Open Access
• About The British Journal of Criminology
• About the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

From Parking Tickets to the Pandemic: Fixed Penalty Notices, Inequity and the Regulation of Everyday Behaviours

• View article

The Iconic Apache: Early 1900s Paris and the Making of a Criminal Bogeyman

‘valuable lives to save’ vs. ‘babysitting these people while they try to kill themselves’: changing police attitudes towards safe consumption sites, emerging victims in contemporary drugs policing, correction to: for better or worse improving the response to domestic abuse offenders on probation, managing the risk of living: life imprisonment, the medical gaze and the construction of the paroled body, unmasked and exposed: the impact of covid-19 on the youth custodial estate. a compelling case for ideological change, victims, perpetrators and bystanders: atrocity and its aftermath in the films of jasmila žbanić, judges as agents of coloniality: understanding the coloniality of justice at the pre-trial stage in brazil, the construction of capital among family members of people in prison, colonial confessions: an autoethnography of writing criminology in the new south africa, ‘hazardous on my soul’: (dis)compassion and emotive dissonance in prison work, power and purpose in an immigration removal centre, ethnic inequalities in sentencing: evidence from the crown court in england and wales, navigating police contact: how situations shape police–youth relations, child criminal exploitation and the interactional emergence of victim status, the official history of criminal justice in england and wales vol. iv: the politics of law and order. by david downes and tim newburn (routledge, oxford, 2023, 342pp., £96.00 hbk), pain in vain: penal abolition and the legacy of louk hulsman. edited by justin piché (j. piché and j. hulsman trans.). (red quill books, ottawa, 2023, 290pp. £26.99 pb), for better or worse improving the response to domestic abuse offenders on probation, the eyes and ears of sexual exploitation online: are sex buyers part of the prevention puzzle to reduce harms in the online sex industry, ‘sedative coping’, contextual maturity and institutionalization among prisoners serving life sentences in england and wales, surveillance cameras and resistance: a case study of a middle school in china, hate crime policy and disability: from vulnerability to ableism. by seamus taylor (bristol university press, bristol, 2022, 262 pp. £85.00 hbk), illicit alcohol markets and everyday crime: a historical reconceptualization, contested, discounted and disproven stories of rape: the social pathways of rape reporting, correction to: relational police work: how police officers work with, on and through ‘personal relationships’ in a danish gang exit programme, is the party really over parties, partisanship and the politics of crime, ‘ i’m his safe space ’: mothers’ experiences of physical violence from their neurodivergent children—gender, conflict and the ethics of care, the prison as a space of non-life: how does a typical prison sentence intervene in what really matters to people, sexual history evidence in rape trials: is the jury out by charlotte herriott (abingdon, routledge, 2023, 190 pp. £120.00 hbk), the victimization of rohingyas in myanmar and bangladesh: breaking the silence - postcolonial criminology, ethnography and genocide, taking prison to court: exploring the judicial review of prison decision-making through supreme court judges in israel, the home office’s racism studies before the macpherson inquiry: revisiting administrative criminology’s corpus, rural transformations and rural crime: international critical perspectives in rural criminology. edited by matt bowden and alistair harkness (bristol, uk: bristol university press, 2022, 209 pp. £85.00 hbk), hate crime and class vulnerability: a case study of white nationalist violence against unhoused indigenous people, invisible stripes a field experiment on the disclosure of a criminal record in the british labour market and the potential effects of introducing ban-the-box policies.

• Supplementary data

Policing and Sense of Place: ‘Shallow’ and ‘Deep’ Security in an English Town

Working through desistance: employment in women’s identity and relational desistance, email alerts.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1464-3529
• Print ISSN 0007-0955
• Copyright © 2024 Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (formerly ISTD)
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol
• PMC10434761

Criminal behavior and contingency

Associated data.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Although their perspectives and approaches vary, existing criminological theories are all based on the deterministic optimism that the crucial causes of criminal behavior must exist and can be uncovered. However, no key factor can fully explain the causes of criminal behavior. All factors that directly affect the occurrence of criminal behavior are important, and contingency is always at work. More feasible crime prevention and control measures can be proposed only considering the contingency factor. The aim of this study is to point out the limitations of the deterministic view of existing criminological theories that explain the causes of crime after knowing the results, and simultaneously to propose the contingency model with viable alternative solutions.

Introduction

Determining the causes of criminal behavior is a fundamental issue in criminology. Various disciplines have explored this topic, from the philosophical perspective of classical theories and positivism to the fields of biology, psychology, and sociology. These efforts have also included interdisciplinary and integrated approaches. Despite their differences, all approaches share a deterministic optimism that they can uncover the root causes of criminal behavior, leading also to the conclusion that crime prediction is possible. The assumption of the existence of key elements of criminal behavior is based on the causal theory, according to which there is an effect because there is a cause. Such a belief seems possible because the causes of crime are analyzed as the result of a criminal behavior that has already occurred.

The analysis of a certain behavior can only be accurate for that specific case. This causal belief can be considered as an outcome bias and a narrative fallacy in terms of behavioral economics ( Taleb, 2001 ; Kahneman, 2011 ); that is, it involves analyzing and explaining the causes of a behavior in accordance with the theoretical framework while knowing the consequences and all the circumstances. Thus, the deterministic analysis of the causes of criminal behavior is necessarily problematic. Even when various conditions for the occurrence of criminal behavior are met, the fulfillment of these conditions does not necessarily lead to crime; that is, low self-control, social learning, strain, neutralization of criminal behavior, criminal opportunity, and other conditions for criminal behavior do not necessarily lead to crime.

The conditions for criminal behavior proposed by existing criminological theories are certainly related to crime and are necessary conditions for criminal behavior to occur. However, they are not sufficient conditions. Therefore, existing theories cannot explain all criminal behaviors and has theoretical limitations, although they are logically plausible and empirically valid.

The reason criminal behavior does not necessarily occur, even when the elements for causing criminal behavior are given, is because there are unpredictable factors, such as “contingency.” Even at this moment, everything is changing. As the same conditions cannot exist in the world, the same criminal behavior does not exist, either. That is why criminals do not always commit crimes, no matter how much they are brimming with criminality or how many criminal opportunities there are. This is also why criminal behavior cannot be accurately predicted.

Thus, the purpose of this study is to point out the problem of the hindsight fallacy, which explains causes in the state of knowing the outcome, based on the deterministic optimism that the causes of criminal behavior can be accurately identified. Furthermore, this study aims to answer to the question: “Why does criminal behavior occur?” This study focuses on criminal behavior, not crime itself; that is, it addresses the issues of why and how behaviors that have already been defined as crimes occur.

Deterministic views of criminal behavior

Most of theories to explain the causes of criminal behavior are based on deterministic causality, regardless of the different approaches ( Gottfredson and Hirshi, 1987 ; Akers, 1994 ; Miethe and Meier, 1994 ; Agnew, 1995 ; Mannon, 1997 ; Walsh, 2014 ; Boutwell et al., 2015 ; Paternoster, 2017 ; Winfree and Abadinsky, 2017 ). These theories focus on the particular variables that contribute to crime ( Agnew and Messner, 2015 ). They are designed to show that the causes of criminal behavior lie in the body, mind, and social relationships, meaning that criminal behaviors are caused by important biological, psychological, and sociological determinants. Even theories of the behavior of criminal law take the deterministic position that criminal behaviors are “determined primarily by how the law is written and enforced” ( Vold et al., 1998 , p. 11).

Although there are many criminological theorists who accept soft determinism or indeterminism, the deterministic model is dominant in individual-level criminological research ( Agnew, 1995 ). Mannon (1997) claims that much individual-level criminological research is based on deterministic models. Agnew (2016) asserts that the three major criminological theories, including strain theory, social learning theory, and control theory, are also based on deterministic causality ( Agnew, 2016 ).

As argued, most criminological theories are based on causation, which appears to be a deterministic concept ( Frosch and Johnson-Laird, 2011 ). Matza (1964) explains that such deterministic view, like other phenomena in the natural world, is due to the epistemological standpoint of positivist criminology that human behavior is subject to deterministic laws. Human behavior, such as crime, is caused by internal or external forces acting on individuals ( Matza, 1964 ).

The life course or developmental approach is also deterministic in that it attempts to find the root of crime ( Lilly et al., 2015 ). This approach is also optimistic as it assumes that crime can be prevented or controlled by eliminating or reducing crucial factors for criminal behavior in the developmental process.

Attempts to explain the causes of criminal behavior in terms of criminal motivation and opportunity have also been based on a deterministic perspective. Cantor and Land (1985) argue that motivation and opportunity represent “two structural effects of opposite algebraic sign” (p. 321). Felson and Clarke (1998) also argue that all crimes are caused by two factors: the offender’s motivation to commit a crime and the opportunity to perform the desired act in a given situation. However, Miethe and Meier (1994) argue that most criminological theories are theories of criminal motivation and focus on finding the determinants of criminal motivation. Weisburd et al. (2014) and Wilcox and Cullen (2018) also point out that criminological theories focus on individuals and motivation. In contrast, the opportunity thesis posits that “the convergence in time and space of suitable targets and the absence of capable guardians may even lead to large increases in crime rates without necessarily requiring any increase in the structural conditions that motivate individuals to engage in crime” ( Cohen and Felson, 1979 , p. 589). Situational criminological theories, such as the routine activity theory, the crime pattern theory, the multi-contextual opportunity theory (MCOT), and the situational action theory (SAT) emphasize the importance of criminal opportunity ( Cohen and Felson, 1979 ; Clarke, 1980 ; Clarke and Felson, 1993 ; Miethe and Meier, 1994 ; Wikström, 2014 ; Wilcox and Cullen, 2018 ). Because these theories assume that crime occurs when opportunities for crime arise and that crime can be prevented by reducing opportunities ( Felson and Clarke, 1998 ), they do not deviate from the deterministic view.

As for the deterministic perspective, another problem with criminological theory is the tendency to simplify as much as possible to explain all criminal phenomena with as few variables. Various integrated theoretical approaches, including research aimed at integrating different theoretical viewpoints into a single overarching perspective ( Boutwell et al., 2015 ) attempt to achieve generalization through simplification ( Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990 ; Miethe and Meier, 1994 ; Felson, 2006 ; Cullen, 2011 ; Agnew, 2016 ; Kavish and Boutwell, 2018 ; Akers et al., 2020 ). The idea of a general theory that can explain everything with a single concept must be attractive. Parsimony seems to be the main weapon of optimistic determinism that allows generalization. However, this simplification cannot fully reflect reality. There are bound to be exceptions that the theory cannot explain, which is also the reason for the gap between theory and reality.

Causality and contingency

The instinctive desire to understand the causes behind an event leads to the search for patterns. Humans are always “too quick to see order and causality in randomness” ( Kahneman, 2011 , p. 117). Most of the patterns we find have a causal basis. Our survival has been supported by finding patterns with empirical and causal bases.

We could tell that a wild animal was approaching when we heard and saw the grass move in the forest, and we could predict rain when dark clouds appeared in the sky. It was more likely that the forest grass was simply shaken by the wind, but people have been more attracted to causal relationships based on the evolutionary psychology judgment of false positives ( Barkow, 2006 ; Johnson et al., 2013 ; Huneman, 2014 ). However, patterns are the result of randomness rather than causality.

Francis Bacon, in the Novum Organum, said, that “once the human intellect has adopted an opinion, it endorses and attracts everything that supports it. Even if there are more cases that conform to the opposing views and their importance is greater, the human intellect ignores them and dismisses them with scorn or some kind of discrimination. Those who take pleasure in this vain pride pay attention to events when they agree with their views. In much more cases of inconsistency, however, it is ignored and overlooked” ( Hand, 2014 , p. 35). Bacon’s argument shows the seriousness of confirmation bias which does not rely on scientific observations.

Modern scientific laws are deterministic. The so-called “clockwork universe” recognizes that the universe evolves along a well-defined path like a clock ( Shapin, 1996 ; Berryman, 2021 ). From this perspective, nothing is unpredictable. Unpredictability is simply explained by ignorance of the surrounding conditions or the principles of nature. Albert Einstein said “God does not play dice” arguing that the results of measurements appear as probabilities because we do not know all the variables that govern the behavior of particles, the so-called “hidden variables theory” ( Hand, 2014 ).

In modern quantum physics, however, everyday physical laws do not apply, and all events are determined only by probabilities. The radioactive decay of the quantum world or the transition of atoms simply happens, for no particular reason ( Gribbin, 1984 ). There is no direct causal relationship. As with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, the more precisely the position of a particle is known, the less precisely the momentum of the particle is known ( Gribbin, 1984 ). Heisenberg (2009) says that quantum physics has revealed the inherent unpredictability of nature. Quantum effects have broken the deterministic laws of classical mechanics ( Heisenberg, 2009 ). In modern science, contingency is what fundamentally drives nature, and uncertainty lies at the heart of nature ( Glynn, 2010 ; Cartwright, 2016 ).

However, probability theory of quantum physics is not the same as saying that all possible phenomena occur randomly without any laws in the world. The word “randomness” means that every phenomenon has the same probability, and quantum physics calculates the probability that the particle is found at a specific location and the probability of having a specific momentum, depending on the physical state of the particle. In this regard, instead of the existing term ‘nondeterminism’, it is sometimes referred to as probabilistic determinism in the philosophical world. Classical determinism only acknowledges linear causal relationships in which one event produces only one outcome, and probabilistic determinism accepts causal relationships in tree structures in which one event can have multiple possible outcomes.

In chaos theory, as explained by Edward Lorenz, the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not determine the future approximately ( Danfort, 2020 ). As humans only ever know the present approximately, it is impossible to predict the future ( Hand, 2014 ). The “butterfly effect” noted by Lorenz means that minute differences in initial conditions make the state of a system in the near future completely unpredictable.

From an evolutionary biology perspective, evolutionary change can be thought to be brought about by the deterministic force of natural selection, but natural selection occurs through the action of unpredictable and random factors ( Blount et al., 2018 ; McConwell, 2019 ). Monod (1971) , a Nobel laureate and French molecular biologist, argues that the evolution of life is a product of chance. DNA is also subject to quantum fluctuations and is constantly influenced by the external environment. Mutations are the result of these quantum fluctuations; thus, they are events that occur by chance ( Monod, 1971 ). It is estimated that in humans about 100 million mutations occur in each generation ( Monod, 1971 ), which shows how great the random variability is.

Furthermore, humans are composed of 100 billion neurons, and the interconnection of synapses leads to interactions between these neurons that result in cognitive functions ( Ramachandran, 2011 ). However, because brain cells are constantly evolving, future behavior can never be predicted with the current structure. The principle of uncertainty also applies to brain cells and psychological decisions. In this regard, Harman’s argument that human beings are only a product of chance, the product of an “incalculable number of random events” makes sense ( Harman, 2014 , p. 490).

The claim that there is only one final explanation for everything is problematic. Mulkay (1981) points out the problems with this deterministic approach because the facts and content underlying the theories that claim that a single definitive approach is possible change depending on the social context and situation. The attempt to establish a general theory is very ambitious and attractive, but for that very reason it fails.

There is hardly any specific, decisive and final explanatory factor that can explain everything. Kuhn (1977) argues that there is no theory that can solve all puzzles at a given time, and that the solutions already obtained are not perfect. On the contrary, it is the incompleteness of the existing data-theory fit that defines many of the puzzles that characterize normal science. If any discrepancy between the data and the theory must be considered a rejection of the theory, then all theories should always be rejected ( Kuhn, 1977 ).

As Krumboltz (2009) states with his “planned happenstance theory,” contingency plays an important role in a person’s career. No one can accurately predict the future. No one knows with certainty “which people one will meet, who will call, or what letters or e-mails will arrive on any given day” ( Mitchell et al., 1999 , p. 116). It is because of contingency that even brothers born to the same parents take completely different life paths. A person’s life process is influenced by unpredictable events ( Mitchell et al., 1999 ).

Yu et al. (2020) also argue that there is no single strategic option that fits all. They argue that both internal and external dimensions have an impact on shaping an organization’s strategy and that no single model can provide optimal results. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the contingent relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable. The circumstance-contingent factors could influence the effects of the independent variable ( Yu et al., 2020 ). Contingency exists when A cannot prove that it necessarily results in B, when there is an exception, and when the cause is too complex and cannot be specified, in the sense of the principle of a complex system. Correlation, on the other hand, indicates the statistical association between variables by measuring the extent to which they are related or covariant. While correlation can reveal statistical significance and probability, estimating contingency proves challenging due to the complexity and numerous variables that elude human comprehension.

Many criminological theories, including the social learning theory, the self-control theory, and the life course theory, emphasize the importance of early socialization in the development of criminality ( Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990 ; Sampson and Laub, 1993 ; Akers, 1998 ). These theories particularly emphasize the importance of parents. The problem is that having good parents is entirely the result of contingency. Even for individuals with the same parents, their own specific combination of genes is a result of contingency. No one knows in advance one’s genetic characteristics. The time and place of birth are also closely related to the occurrence of crime; however, this is a result of contingency as well.

As Hirtenlehner and Kunz (2017) explain, low self-control has been shown to be the most reliable predictor of deviant and criminal behavior. However, even people with low self-control can live a lifetime completely independent of crime. Conversely, some terrorists may commit criminal acts while exhibiting high self-control.

Criminal motivation and opportunity are considered necessary conditions for crime to occur. However, it is difficult to view criminal motivation and opportunity as deterministic factors for criminal behavior. No matter how great the criminal motivation, people are not obsessed with crime all day. Criminal motivation is an independent variable in which individual disposition plays a role, but individual disposition is not stable and is flexible depending on the situation. Contingency matters. There can be no general criminal motivation that applies always and to everyone, regardless of contingent circumstances.

Horney (2006) also criticizes that many criminological theories are problematic in their search for general causes and motives for crime, even though criminal motivation can vary depending on the situation. Violent offenders who commit violent crimes are not always impulsive or antisocial. Mischel and Shoda (1995) studied how people’s behavior changes in different specific situations and found that there is no constant factor. Focquaert (2019) also refutes the one-way causal relationship, noting that many individuals with biological risk factors may not commit crimes, while some individuals who do not have a specific risk factor may commit crimes.

Criminal opportunity can be explained from a psychological perspective. The evaluation and assessment of opportunity may vary from person to person. What is not perceived as an opportunity by others may be judged as a good criminal opportunity by criminals. This is because people intuitively judge the values and costs of actions and do not process information objectively and perfectly as computers do ( Ward et al., 2006 ). Opportunities are created by chance. It is an ex-post explanation that a crime occurred because a criminal opportunity was present, and it is only a narrative fallacy. It is important to pay attention to how criminal opportunities come about.

If situation can be understood as a concept similar to contingency, as mentioned above, the concept of contingency can be explained by situational theories of crime. However, situational theories cannot account for all possible circumstances. If all situations cannot be accounted for, contingency must work. Therefore, situational theories of crime cannot fully explain the causes of all criminal behavior.

A contingency does not need to occur, whereas a necessity must occur. The deterministic causes of crime as asserted by existing criminological theories do not necessarily lead to crime. Low self-control or strain do not necessarily lead to crime. Crime does not necessarily occur even when the conditions for the causes of crime asserted by these criminological theories, including biological, psychological, and sociological theories, are met because contingency intervenes. Therefore, contingency is important in explaining criminal behavior. Although certain factors may be considered the most important factor in the occurrence and prediction of criminal behavior, the reliability and validity of these factors is inevitably reduced when the variable of contingency is interposed.

It is certainly not easy to analyze and predict criminal behavior at both the macro and individual levels. In the 1990s, many criminologists, including Wilson and Petersilia (1995) , predicted a sharp increase in crime after the mid-1990s, but crimes actually declined ( Zimring, 2007 ). Wilson and Petersilia (1995) predicted that violent crime would continue to increase in the late 1990s and even warned of “get ready.” The increase in crime was expected based on several factors, such as economic indicators that are evaluated as related to crime rates, but the actual crime rate declined. Since then, several research papers have been published explaining the reasons for the decline in crime; however, they are affected not only by a hindsight bias but also by a narrative fallacy ( Pinker, 2011 ). This is because we cannot accurately predict the criminal situation 1 year or 5 years in the future. The contingency of criminal behavior becomes clear when Hand’s (2014) law of necessity is applied to criminal behavior. According to Hand (2014) , if a complete list of all possible outcomes can be generated, one of the outcomes will inevitably occur. However, in the case of criminal behavior, a complete list of all possible outcomes cannot be generated. Therefore, criminal behavior is subject to contingency.

Of course, some criminological theories acknowledge the contingency of criminal behavior ( Felson, 1998 , 2006 ; Wikström, 2014 ; Gottfredson and Hirschi, 2020 ). Gottfredson and Hirschi (2020) argue that “most criminal behaviors are highly opportunistic, momentary, or adventitious (p. 12).” Felson (2006) also argues that “diverse cues are emitted in the course of life” and that some of them lead people to commit crimes (p. 15). However, he does not mention the role and importance of contingency. Criminal behavior is caused by a combination of various factors. Existing theories state that certain factors are more relevant to criminal behavior. Conversely, there is little consideration of the role and importance of contingency in influencing criminal behavior. Positivism, which forms the basis of modern criminological theories, assumes that humans also follow deterministic laws of nature. However, these theories do not seem to consider that contingency and uncertainty fundamentally govern nature, as recognized by modern science such as quantum physics and molecular biology.

Just as water boils only when it exceeds the boiling point, a crime occurs when all the necessary conditions for a crime to occur are met. There should be both necessary and sufficient conditions for criminal behavior to occur. The “chemistry for crime” should presuppose all the necessary conditions, just as “chemical reactions occur only when all of necessary ingredients are mixed together” ( Felson, 1998 , p. 52).

The perfect conditions for crime are never the same and they are constantly changing. Whether or not self-control is present, the same person will react differently to the same stimulus depending on differences in time and space. Even in the same person, the crime depends on the subtle difference in location or the difference of only a few seconds.

Henri Poincare, a French mathematician and physicist, emphasizes the importance of contingency, saying that a series of small causes can combine to produce a huge effect, and that a small cause can determine a large effect ( Pinker, 2011 ). Even when all other conditions are equal, a very small difference will result in a different response. Small differences can change the end result ( Thaler and Sunstein, 2008 ). With respect to crime, small differences also lead to differences in criminal behavior. As illustrated by the butterfly effect of chaos theory, a butterfly in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas. The principle of criticality, where the last drop of water breaks the bank, is at work here.

At a certain point, people are similar to uranium atoms. The uranium explosion does not require a large change in mass (ΔE = Δm × c 2 ). Small changes in mass can lead to massive explosions through chain reactions. Indeed, very small provocations and excitations often lead to various crimes, including assault. Conversely, even extreme provocations and arousals do not necessarily lead to criminal behavior if only very small factors intervene. People do not always react the same way, but differently depending on the situation, which is determined by contingency. Self-control is a psychological judgment and decision that always changes depending on the situation. This is because the human mind does not remain the same due to countless variables that humans cannot control.

According to Hand’s (2014) law of probability leverage, a small change in conditions can have a large effect on probability. As it is impossible to control all criminal circumstances or variables, even a small difference determines whether a criminal behavior occurs. The conditions of occurrence are determined by chance. Thus, it can be said that the sufficient condition for the occurrence of criminal behavior is chance. Assuming that there are 100 factors that directly affect the occurrence of a crime, a crime will not occur if even one of them is absent or altered.

Genetic factors, personality disorders, social disorganization, differential association, strain, self-control, social learning, labeling, neutralization, conflict, and optimism bias are not deterministic factors that inevitably lead to criminal behavior. All these factors are important determinants of the occurrence of criminal behavior, but crime will not occur if some factors are absent or altered, no matter how minor they are.

Various factors act sequentially and simultaneously to cause criminal behavior. Everything in the world is intertwined with everything through quantum signal exchange ( Mindell, 2000 ). As Jung (2010) asserts in explaining synchronicity, it can be a “meaningful coincidence” between events that do not appear to have a causal relationship.

The occurrence of criminal behavior depends ultimately on the offender’s choice and decision; however, countless factors influence the final decision and action. Even minor changes can affect the occurrence of criminal behavior. Trying to explain complex phenomena such as crime with a small number of key variables makes it difficult to offer an accurate and predictive analysis. That is why it is important to consider the relationships between as many variables and factors as possible. Even though the key factor in the occurrence of criminal behavior is not necessarily connected to criminal behavior, considering as many variables as possible related to crime is a way to increase the accuracy and probability of analyzing and predicting the cause of criminal behavior. It can also be a way of preventing and controlling crimes, lowering their probabilities. This is because criminal behavior, like all phenomena in the physical world, is ultimately a product of contingency.

Every event in the world must be the first. There is no such thing as the exact same event. Crime is not an exception. There are no criminal cases that resemble those of the past. Therefore, it is impossible to predict anything with 100% accuracy. Criminal behavior is a product of contingency; it occurs when all criminal conditions are met by contingency. The claim that crime is a product of contingency does not mean that all efforts to prevent crime are useless. Existing theories also do not claim that all crime can be prevented or reduced by controlling each key factor, but rather that they increase the feasibility of crime prevention and control. However, this study suggests that even this feasibility should be affected by contingency. It also suggests that there is no deterministic key factor in the occurrence of criminal behavior. This is because too many factors are involved in the actual occurrence of criminal behavior.

As these factors lead to criminal behavior sequentially and simultaneously, criminal behavior can be prevented by changing only a few factors that directly affect its occurrence. To prevent the occurrence of criminal behavior, attention should be paid to the small differences that can avert the tipping points that lead to the occurrence of criminal behavior. To this end, a more accurate analysis and prediction of the cause of criminal behavior can be achieved by listing as many variables as possible that are related to the cause of criminal behavior and analyzing the relationships rather than simplifying the cause of the crime. More accurate analysis and prediction is possible when tens of thousands of variables are included in the analysis rather than just a few key variables.

Analysis techniques that leverage the latest technologies such as big data, AI (artificial intelligence), and quantum computing can support this approach. In addition, approaches such as “contingency planning” that consider the factor of chance can also be proposed as effective crime prevention and control measures. Particularly, modern AI systems are capable of effectively analyzing and predicting criminal behavior by processing extensive amounts of data and identifying patterns, correlations, and risk factors. AI can facilitate the creation of models that take into account various factors and offer valuable insights to assist in decision-making, risk assessment, and resource allocation. Nevertheless, it is crucial to ensure ethical implementation of these systems, incorporating human oversight to guarantee proper consideration of privacy, fairness, and accountability concerns. This oversight is necessary to prevent unjust biases, protect individual rights, and address any potential issues that may arise.

In summary, there are no deterministic elements that necessarily lead to the occurrence of criminal behavior. There is no universal key that opens all doors. Existing criminological theories have their limitations in that they focus on finding these keys. They have the problem of narrative fallacy, which presents the key factors after knowing the results. Therefore, the existing theories do not fully explain criminal behavior, although they have logical probability and empirical validity. The loophole in the existing theories is contingency.

Contingency affects the occurrence of criminal behaviors anytime and anywhere. Therefore, more feasible measures can be proposed for crime prevention and control only when contingency is considered. However, this study has its limitations in that it has no empirical validity through verification and only proposes theoretical hypotheses, which can be criticized as a strawman argument. There is also a problem with contingency arguments avoiding explanation by designating everything that cannot be explained. It can also oversimplify complex phenomena or attach undue importance to certain factors, which seem to be some kind of tautological fallacy. Nevertheless, the contribution of this study is that it emphasized the importance of contingency for understanding of criminal behavior.

Data availability statement

Author contributions.

C-ML: conceptualization, writing original draft preparation, and reviewing and editing.

This paper was supported by Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology (KIAT) grant funded by the Korea Government (MOTIE) (P0008703, The Competency Development Program for Industry Specialist).

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Agnew R. (1995). Determinism, indeterminism, and crime: an empirical exploration . Criminology 33 , 83–109. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1995.tb01172.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Agnew R. (2016). A theory of crime resistance and susceptibility . Criminology 54 , 181–211. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12104 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Agnew R., Messner S. F. (2015). General assessments and thresholds for chronic offending: an enriched paradigm for explaining crime . Criminology 53 , 571–596. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12079 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Akers R. L. (1994). Criminological theories: Introduction and evaluation . Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company. [ Google Scholar ]
• Akers R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance . Boston, MA: North Eastern University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Akers R. L., Sellers C. S., Jennings W. G. (2020). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application 8th Edn. New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barkow J. H. (2006). “ Evolutionary psychology and criminal behavior ” in Missing the revolution: Darwinism for social scientists . ed. Barkow J. H. (New York: Oxford University Press; ), 225–268. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berryman S. (2021). The clockwork universe and the mechanical hypothesis . Br. J. Hist. Philos. 29 , 806–823. doi: 10.1080/09608788.2020.1835605 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blount Z. D., Lenski R. E., Losos J. B. (2018). Contingency and determinism in evolution: replaying life’s tape . Science 362 :eaam5979. doi: 10.1126/science.aam5979, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boutwell B. B., Barnes J. C., Beaver K. M., Haynes R. D., Nedelec J. L., Gibson C. L. (2015). A unified crime theory: the evolutionary taxonomy . Aggress. Violent Behav. 25 , 343–353. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.09.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cantor D., Land K. C. (1985). Unemployment and crime rates in the post-world war II United States: a theoretical and empirical analysis . Am. Sociol. Rev. 50 , 317–332. doi: 10.2307/2095542 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cartwright N. (2016). Contingency and the order of nature . Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. Biomed. Sci. 58 , 56–63. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.12.008 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarke R. V. (1980). “Situational” crime prevention: theory and practice . Br. J. Criminol. 20 , 136–147. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a047153 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarke R. V., Felson M. (1993). Routine activity and rational choice . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen L., Felson M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach . Am. Sociol. Rev. 44 , 588–607. doi: 10.2307/2094589 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cullen F. T. (2011). Beyond adolescence-limited criminology: choosing our future. The American Society of Criminology 2010 Sutherland address . Criminology 49 , 287–330. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00224.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Danfort C. (2020). Chaos in an atmosphere hanging on a wall . Available at: http://mpe.dimacs.rutgers.edu/2013/03/17/chaos-in-an-atmosphere-hanging-on-a-wall/ .
• Felson M. (1998). Crime and everyday life (2nd Edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Felson M. (2006). Crime and nature . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Felson M., Clarke R. V. (1998). Opportunity makes the thief: practical theory for crime prevention. Police research series, paper 98 . London: Research Development Statistics. [ Google Scholar ]
• Focquaert F. (2019). Neurobiology and crime: a neuro-ethical perspective . J. Crim. Just. 65 , 101533–101539. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.01.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frosch C. A., Johnson-Laird P. N. (2011). Is everyday causation deterministic or probabilistic? Acta Psychol. 137 , 280–291. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.01.015 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glynn L. (2010). Deterministic chance . Br. J. Philos. Sci. 61 , 51–80. doi: 10.1093/bjps/axp020 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottfredson M., Hirschi T. (1990). A general theory of crime . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottfredson M., Hirschi T. (2020). Modern control theory and the limits of criminal justice . New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottfredson M., Hirshi T. (1987). Positive Criminology . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gribbin J. (1984). In search of Schrodinger's cat: Quantum physics and reality . New York: Bantam Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hand D. (2014). The improbability principle: Why coincidences, miracles, and rare events happen every day . New York: Scientific American/Farrar, Straus and Giroux. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harman O. (2014). Chance and necessity revisited . J. Hist. Biol. 47 , 479–493. doi: 10.1007/s10739-014-9390-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heisenberg M. (2009). Is free will an illusion? Nature 459 , 164–165. doi: 10.1038/459164a [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirtenlehner H., Kunz F. (2017). Can self-control theory explain offending in late adulthood? Evidence from Germany . J. Crim. Just. 48 , 37–47. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.12.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Horney J. (2006). An alternative psychology of criminal behavior . Criminology 44 , 1–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00040.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huneman P. (2014). “ Evolutionary psychology: issues, results, debates ” in Handbook of evolutionary thinking in the sciences . eds. Heams T., Huneman P., Lecointre G., Silberstein M. (Berlin: Springer; ), 647–657. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson D. D., Blumstein D. T., Fowler J. H., Haselton M. (2013). The evolution of error: error management, cognitive constraints, and adaptive decision-making biases . Trends Ecol. Evol. 28 , 474–481. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.014, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jung C. G. (2010). Synchronicity: an Acausal connecting principle . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kavish N., Boutwell B. (2018). The unified crime theory and the social correlates of crime and violence: problems and solutions . J. Crim. Psychol. 8 , 287–301. doi: 10.1108/JCP-06-2018-0028 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krumboltz J. D. (2009). The happenstance learning theory . J. Career Assess. 17 , 135–154. doi: 10.1177/1069072708328861 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn T. (1977). The structure of scientific revolutions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lilly J. R., Cullen F. T., Ball R. A. (2015). Criminological theories: Contexts and consequences . 6th Edn. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mannon J. M. (1997). Domestic and intimate violence: an application of routine activities theory . Aggress. Violent Behav. 2 , 9–24. doi: 10.1016/S1359-1789(96)00023-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matza D. (1964). Delinquency and drift . New York: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• McConwell A. K. (2019). Contingency’s causality and structural diversity . Biol. Philos. 34 , 1–26. doi: 10.1007/s10539-019-9679-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miethe T. D., Meier R. F. (1994). Crime and its social context . Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mindell A. (2000). Quantum mind: The edge between physics and psychology . Portland, OR: Lao Tse Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mischel W., Shoda Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure . Psychol. Rev. 102 , 246–268. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell K. E., Levin A. S., Krumboltz J. D. (1999). Planned happenstance: constructing unexpected career opportunities . J. Couns. Dev. 77 , 115–124. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.1999.tb02431.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Monod J. (1971). Chance and necessity: An essay on the natural philosophy of modern biology . New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mulkay M. (1981). Action and belief or scientific discourse? A possible way of ending intellectual aassalage in social studies of science . Philos. Soc. Sci. 11 , 163–171. doi: 10.1177/004839318101100204 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paternoster R. (2017). Happenings, acts, and actions: articulating the meaning and implications of human agency for criminology . J. Dev. Life Course Criminol. 3 , 350–372. doi: 10.1007/s40865-017-0069-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinker S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined . New York: Viking Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramachandran V. S. (2011). The tell-tale brain: A Neuroscientist's quest for what makes us human . New York: W. W. Norton and Company. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sampson R. J., Laub J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 396. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shapin S. (1996). The scientific revolution . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taleb N. N. (2001). Fooled by randomness: The hidden role of chance in life and in the markets . New York: Random House. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thaler R. H., Sunstein C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vold G. B., Bernard T. J., Snipes J. B. (1998). Theoretical criminology . 4th Edn. New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walsh A. (2014). Criminological theory: Assessing philosophical assumptions . New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward D. A., Stafford M. C., Gray L. N. (2006). Rational choice, deterrence, and theoretical integration . J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 36 , 571–585. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00061.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weisburd D., Groff E. R., Yang S. M. (2014). The importance of both opportunity and social disorganization theory in a future research agenda to advance criminological theory and crime prevention at places . J. Res. Crime Delinq. 51 , 499–508. doi: 10.1177/0022427814530404 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wikström P. O. (2014). “ Why crime happens: a situational action theory ” in Analytical sociology: Actions and networks . ed. Manzo G. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd; ), 71–94. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilcox P., Cullen F. T. (2018). Situational opportunity theories of crime . Ann. Rev. Criminol. 1 , 123–148. doi: 10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092421 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson J. Q., Petersilia J. (1995). Crime: Twenty-eight leading experts look at the Most pressing problem of our time . San Francisco, CA: ICS Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Winfree L. T., Abadinsky H. (2017). Essentials of criminological theories (4th Edn.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yu W., Chavez R., Feng M., Wong C. Y., Fynes B. (2020). Green human resource management and environmental cooperation: an ability-motivation-opportunity and contingency perspective . Int. J. Prod. Econ. 219 , 224–235. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.06.013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimring F. E. (2007). The great American crime decline . New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]

• Open access
• Published: 12 August 2014

Innovative data collection methods in criminological research: editorial introduction

• Jean-Louis van Gelder 1 &
• Stijn Van Daele 2  

Crime Science volume  3 , Article number:  6 ( 2014 ) Cite this article

23k Accesses

11 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

Novel technologies, such as GPS, the Internet and virtual environments are not only rapidly becoming an increasingly influential part of our daily lives, they also have tremendous potential for improving our understanding of where, when and why crime occurs. In addition to these technologies, several innovative research methods, such as neuropsychological measurements and time-space budgets, have emerged in recent years. While often highly accessible and relevant for crime research, these technologies and methods are currently underutilized by criminologists who still tend to rely on traditional data-collection methods, such as systematic observation and surveys.

The contributions in this special issue of Crime Science explore the potential of several innovative research methods and novel technologies for crime research to acquaint criminologists with these methods so that they can apply them in their own research. Each contribution deals with a specific technology or method, gives an overview and reviews the relevant literature. In addition, each article provides useful suggestions about new ways in which the technology or method can be applied in future research. The technologies describe software and hardware that is widely available to the consumer (e.g. GPS technology) and that sometimes can even be used free of charge (e.g., Google Street View). We hope this special issue, which has its origins in a recent initiative of the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR) called CRIME Lab, and a collaborative workshop together with the Research consortium Crime, Criminology and Criminal Policy of Ghent University, will inspire researchers to start using innovative methods and novel technologies in their own research.

Issues and challenges facing crime researchers

Applied methods of scientific research depend on a variety of factors that play out at least in part beyond researcher control. One such factor regards the nature and availability of data, which largely determines the research questions that can be addressed: Data that cannot be collected cannot serve to answer a research question. Although this may seem like stating the obvious, it has had and continues to have far-reaching implications for criminological research. Because crime tends to be a covert activity and offenders have every interest in keeping it that way, crime in action can rarely be observed, let alone in such a way as to allow for systematic empirical study. Consequently, our knowledge of the actual offending process is still limited and relies in large part on indirect evidence. The same applies to offender motivations and the offending process; these cannot be measured directly in ways similar to how we can observe say the development of a chemical process or the workings of gravity. This has placed significant restrictions on the way crime research has been performed over the years, and most likely has coloured our view of crime and criminality by directing our gaze towards certain more visible elements such as offender backgrounds, demographics and criminal careers.

Another factor operating outside of researcher control regards the fact that the success of scientific analyses hinges on the technical possibilities to perform them. Even if researchers have access to particular data, this does not guarantee that the technology to perform the analysis in the best possible way is available to them. The complexity of the social sciences and the interconnectivity of various social phenomena, together with the lack of a controlled environment or laboratory, require substantial computational power to test highly complicated models. For instance, the use of space-time budgets, social network analysis or agent-based modelling can be quite resource-intensive. Adding the complexity of social reality to the resulting datasets (e.g. background variables related to social structure, GIS to incorporate actual road networks, etc.) puts high pressure on the available computational power of regular contemporary desktop computers. Addressing these challenges has practical and financial consequences, which brings us to the third issue, which although more mundane in nature is by no means limited to the applied sciences: a researcher requires the financial and non-financial resources to be able to perform his research.

All three factors have a bearing on the contents and goals of the present special issue. More specifically, the methods that are discussed and explained in different articles in this special issue each address one or more of these factors and have, we believe, the potential to radically change the way we think about crime and go about doing crime research. The methods and technologies are available, feasible and affordable. They are, so to speak, there for the taking.

Notes on criminological research methods

The above factors have contributed to a general tendency within criminology to stick to particular research traditions, both in terms of method and analysis. Although these traditions are well-developed and have undergone substantial improvement over the decades, most changes in the way research is performed in the discipline have been of the ’more of the same‘ variety, and most involve gradual improvements, rather than embodying ‘scientific revolutions’ and ‘paradigm shifts’ that have radically changed how criminologists go about doing research and thinking about crime.

With respect to methodology, since the field's genesis in the early 20th century, research in criminology has largely spawned studies using similar methods. In a meta-analysis of articles that have appeared in seven leading criminology and criminal justice journals in 2001-2002, Kleck et al. ([ 2006 ]) demonstrate that survey research is still the dominant method of collecting information (45.1%), followed by the use of archival data (31.8%), and official statistics (25.6%). Other methods, such as interviews, ethnographies and systematic observation, each account for less than 10% (as methods are sometimes combined the percentages add up to more than 100%). Furthermore, the Kleck et al. meta-analysis shows that as far as data analysis is concerned, nearly three quarters (72.5%) of the articles published uses some type of multivariate statistics. As such, it appears that criminology has developed a research tradition that started to dominate the field, though not to everybody's enthusiasm. Berk ([ 2010 ]), for example, states that regression analysis, in its broad conception, has become so dominant that researchers give it more credit than they sometimes should and take some of its possibilities for granted. Whereas certain research traditions may have a strong added value, they run the risk of being used more out of habit than for being the most appropriate method to answer a particular research question. As innovation influences our daily lives and how we perform our daily activities, there is no reason why it should not influence our way of performing science as well.

Innovation and technology in daily life and their application in criminological research

Novel technologies, such as GPS, the Internet, and virtual environments are rapidly establishing themselves as ingrained elements of our daily lives. Think, for example, of smart phones. While unknown to most of us as recently as ten years ago, today few people would leave their home without carrying one with them. Through their ability to, for example, transmit visual and written communication, use social media, locate ourselves and others through apps and GPS, smart phone technology has radically changed the way we go about our daily routines. The research potential of smart phone technology for improving our understanding of social phenomena is enormous and includes a better understanding of where, when and why crime occurs through automated data collection, interactive tests and surveys (Miller [ 2012 ]). Yet, so far surprisingly few crime researchers have picked up on the possibilities this technology has to offer.

A similar point can be made with respect to the Internet. While most researchers have made the transition from paper-and-pencil questionnaires to online surveys and online research panels may have become the norm for collecting community sample data, much of the potential of the Internet for crime research remains untapped. Think, for example, of the possibility of using Google Maps and Google Street View for studying spatial aspects of crime and the ease with which we can virtually travel down most of the roads and streets to examine street corners, buildings and neighbourhoods. The launch of Google Street View in Belgium stirred up controversy because it was perceived by police officers as a catalogue for burglars and was expected to lead to an increase in the number of burglaries. While it is not clear whether this has actually happened, crime studies reporting these tools in their method sections are few and far between.

In addition to novel technologies, several innovative research methods, such as social network analysis, time-space budgets, and neuropsychological measures that can tap into people's physiological and mental state, have emerged in recent years and have become common elements of the tool-set used in some of criminology's sister disciplines, such as sociology, psychology and neuroscience. Again, while often highly accessible and relevant for crime research, these methods are currently underutilized by crime researchers. The promising and emerging field of neurocriminology is an important exception in this respect (see e.g., Glenn & Raine [ 2014 ]).

To revert back to the three issues that have restricted the gaze of criminology mentioned at the outset of this article: accessibility of data, type of data analysis, and availability of resources, the new methods and technologies seem to check all the boxes. Much more data have become accessible for analysis through novel technologies, new methods for data-analysis and data-collection have been developed, and most of it is available at the consumer level. In other words, this allows for collecting and examining data in ways that go far beyond what we are used to in crime research. For example, methods combining neurobiological measurements with virtual environments can tell us a lot about an individual's mental and physical states and how they go about making criminal decisions, which were until recently largely black boxes. Finally, novel technologies are often available on the consumer market, such as smart phones, tablets, and digital cameras, and require only very modest research budgets. In some cases, such as the automated analysis of footage made by security cameras, simulations, or the use of honeypots that lure cyber criminals into hacking them, they even allow for systematically examining crime in action.

Goals of this special issue of Crime Science

The principal aim of the present special issue is to acquaint crime researchers and criminology students with some of these technologies and methods and explain how they can be used in crime research. While widely diverging, what these technologies and methods have in common is their accessibility and potential for furthering our understanding of crime and criminal behavior. The idea, in other words, is to explore the potential of innovative research methods of data-collection and novel technologies for crime research and to acquaint readers with these methods so that they can apply them in their own research.

Each article deals with a specific technology or method and is set-up in such a way as to give readers an overview of the specific technology/method at hand, i.e., what it is about, why to use it and how to do so, and a discussion of relevant literature on the topic. Furthermore, when relevant, articles contain technical information regarding the tools that are currently available and how they can be obtained. Case studies also feature in each article, giving readers a clearer picture of what is at stake. Finally, we have encouraged all contributors to give their views on possible future developments with the specific technology or method they describe and to make a prediction regarding the direction their field could or should develop. We sincerely hope this will inspire readers to apply these methods in their own work.

While not intended as a manual, after reading an article, readers should not only have a clear view of what the method/technology entails but also of how to use it, possibly in combination with one or more of the references that are provided in the annotated bibliography provided at the end of each article. The contributions may also be useful for researchers already working with a specific method or students interested in research methodology.

Article overview

Hoeben, Bernasco and Pauwels discuss the space-time budget method. This method aims at retrospectively recording on an hour-by-hour basis the whereabouts and activities of respondents, including crime and victimization. The method offers a number of advantages over existing methods for data-collection on crime and victimization such as the possibility of studying situational causes of crime or victimization, possibly in combination with individual lifestyles, routine activities and similar theoretical concepts. Furthermore, the space-time budget method offers the possibility of collecting information on spatial location, which enables the study of a respondent's whereabouts, going beyond the traditional focus of ecological criminological studies on residential neighborhoods. Finally, the collected spatial information on the location of individuals can be combined with data on neighborhood characteristics from other sources, which enables the empirical testing of a variety of ecological criminological theories.

The contribution of Gerritsen focuses on the possibilities offered by agent-based modeling, a technique borrowed from the domain of Artificial Intelligence. Agent-based modeling (ABM) is a computational method that enables a researcher to create, analyse and experiment with models composed of agents that interact within a computational environment. Gerritsen explains how modeling and simulation techniques may help gain more insight into (informal) criminological theories without having to experiment with these phenomena in the real world. For example, to study the effect of bystander presence on norm violation, an ‘artificial neighborhood’ can be developed that is inhabited by 'virtual aggressors and victims’, and by manipulating the agents’ parameters different hypothetical scenarios may be explored. This enables criminologists to investigate complex processes in a relatively fast and cheap manner.

Since the pioneering early studies of the 1990s hinted at its promise as a method for social scientific research, Virtual Reality (VR) technology is increasingly used as a research tool by social scientists from various disciplines such as psychology and sociology. Given recent developments that have greatly enhanced the realism, reduced costs, and increased possibilities for application, it seems well on its way to become an established method in the social sciences. In their contribution Van Gelder, Luciano and Otte explore the potential of VR as a tool for research in criminology. Their article offers a description of how virtual reality has been used in social scientific research before discussing the potential it holds for criminology. By way of illustration, the authors describe a recent case study that has used immersive virtual reality for theory testing, which gives an idea of the unique possibilities of VR for studying crime.

Cornet also draws from criminology's sister disciplines in her article on neurobiological measurements observing that while the literature on the relationship between neurobiological factors and antisocial behavior has accumulated in recent years, the use of neurobiological measurements does not yet play a central role in criminological research. One of the underlying reasons Cornet identifies is the idea among criminologists that it is complicated to use these techniques compared to sociological, psychological and behavioral instruments. This article aims to provide an overview of the most commonly used neurobiological measurements, their added value and, importantly, how they can be relatively easily implemented in criminological research.

Vandeviver explains the possibilities and merits of online mapping applications such as Google Maps and Google Street View. While these technologies have evoked concern from law enforcement agencies that offenders could exploit them, Vandeviver notes that for criminologists they also open up several new perspectives to conduct research. Elaborating on results from prior studies in related fields and personal research experience, three potential uses of Google Maps and Google Street View in criminological research are explored and discussed. In particular, this article deals with how these online mapping applications can generate new research questions, how they allow revisiting and re-assessing established theories in criminology and common research practices, and how they should be considered an essential part of the methodological toolkit of criminologists.

Lemieux, also taking a spatial approach, describes how digital cameras with integrated GPS units can be used to collect useful data for criminological purposes observing that while visual observations have traditionally been an important method of criminological research, when combined with spatial data, such observations become a particularly useful way to describe how crime and disorder are distributed. Lemieux describes the utility and ease of using geo-tagged photographs and GPS tracks for monitoring illegal activity in urban and rural settings presenting case studies from Uganda and Amsterdam.

Vander Laenen discusses a method of qualitative criminological research, the Nominal Group Technique (NGT), which is not necessarily innovative by and of itself, but which has hardly been applied in criminology. The NGT is a highly structured technique with characteristics of an individual survey and a focus group. However its structure limits the influence of the researcher and of group dynamics and guarantees equal participation to all group members and equal influence of (conflicting) values and ideas. The NGT forms an ideal technique for gathering and prioritizing ideas and for innovative solution planning. Furthermore, despite the structure of the procedure, the technique can be modified and easily be applied in a mixed-methods research design. By means of an example, Vande Laenen reports on the use of the NGT in a study on the needs assessment of drug (prevention) policy.

In the final contribution to this special issue on innovative methods of data collection in criminology, De Bondt suggests solutions for doing cross-border criminal policy research and the confusion in wording and interpretation that emerge when comparing different legal systems. Correctly interpreting foreign information and using it as a valid source to substantiate analyses on where, when and why crime occurs and/or how to improve the fight against crime, often requires the expertise of people that are very familiar with a certain legal system. Based on a literature review and a number of successful experiences with the method in past research projects, the strengths and weaknesses of working with (predominantly) multiple choice based questionnaires sent to a single point of contact in each of the EU member states is elaborated upon.

Authors' contributions

Both Jean-Louis van Gelder and Stijn van Daele contributed to all aspects of the paper. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Berk R: What you can and can't properly do with regression. J Quant Criminol 2010, 26(4):481–487. doi:10.1007/s10940–010–9116–4 doi:10.1007/s10940-010-9116-4 10.1007/s10940-010-9116-4

Article   Google Scholar  

Glenn AL, Raine A: Neurocriminology: implications for the punishment, prediction and prevention of criminal behaviour. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2014, 15(1):54–63. doi:10.1038/Nrn3640 doi:10.1038/Nrn3640 10.1038/nrn3640

Kleck G, Tark J, Bellows J: What methods are most frequently used in research in criminology and criminal justice? [Article]. J Crim Justice 2006, 34(2):147–152. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.01.007 doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.01.007 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.01.007

Miller G: The smartphone psychology manifesto. Perspect Psychol Sci 2012, 7(3):221–237. doi:10.1177/1745691612441215 doi:10.1177/1745691612441215 10.1177/1745691612441215

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), De Boelelaan 1105, Amsterdam, 1081, HV, The Netherlands

Jean-Louis van Gelder

Ghent University, Universiteitstraat 4, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

Stijn Van Daele

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Louis van Gelder .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 ), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

van Gelder, JL., Van Daele, S. Innovative data collection methods in criminological research: editorial introduction. Crime Sci 3 , 6 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-014-0006-1

Download citation

Received : 17 April 2014

Accepted : 30 April 2014

Published : 12 August 2014

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-014-0006-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Crime Science

ISSN: 2193-7680

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Articles on Criminology

Displaying 1 - 20 of 85 articles.

Bondi attacker had ‘mental health issues’ but most people with mental illness aren’t violent

James Ogloff , Swinburne University of Technology

Most states now have affirmative sexual consent laws, but not enough people know what they mean

Jonathan Crowe , University of Southern Queensland and Gianni Ribeiro , University of Southern Queensland

A survey found 1 in 6 men admit sexual feelings for children. So is paedophilia increasing?

Xanthe Mallett , University of Newcastle

New ‘healing’ prison in Ireland points to long history of progressive penal reform

Louise Brangan , University of Strathclyde

How mistaken identity can lead to wrongful convictions

Hayley Cullen , Macquarie University

Rehab for South Africa’s female inmates focuses on domestic chores – instead of finding good work

Sibulelo Qhogwana , University of Johannesburg and Puleng Segalo , University of South Africa

Access and attention: why serial killers like Lucy Letby often work in healthcare

When mafia threatens democracy: research shows ordinary people are less honest in countries hit by organised crime

Giovanni A. Travaglino , Royal Holloway University of London ; Alberto Mirisola , University of Palermo , and Pascal Burgmer , University of Southampton

Baseless anti-trans claims fuel adoption of harmful laws – two criminologists explain

Henry F. Fradella , Arizona State University and Alexis Rowland , University of California, Irvine

Revenge, excitement, or profit: why do people commit arson?

Xanthe Mallett , University of Newcastle and Joel Robert McGregor , Swinburne University of Technology

Crimestoppers: the charity providing an anonymous link between the public and the police for 35 years

Ella Rabaiotti , Swansea University

‘Swarm’ is a dark, satirical look at how the absence of meaningful relationships can spawn a serial killer

Jenae Harris , Kennesaw State University

The camera never lies? Our research found CCTV isn’t always dependable when it comes to murder investigations

Helen Jones , University of South Wales and Fiona Brookman , University of South Wales

Expert Q&A: why do people commit murder-suicides ?

Sandra Flynn , University of Manchester

For burglars, it’s the most wonderful time of the year: how to keep your home safe these holidays

Natalie Gately , Edith Cowan University and Suzanne Rock , Edith Cowan University

‘I go for the food’: what children and young people told us about why they steal from houses

When remains are found in a suitcase, forensics can learn a lot from the insects trapped within

Paola A. Magni , Murdoch University

How your brainwaves could be used in criminal trials

Michel Funicelli , Teesside University

Crime control: what South Africa can learn from China

Casper Lӧtter , North-West University

The concrete effects of body cameras on police accountability

Suat Cubukcu , American University ; Erdal Tekin , American University ; Nusret Sahin , Stockton University , and Volkan Topalli , Georgia State University

Related Topics

• Forensic science
• Violent crime

Top contributors

Associate Professor in Criminal Justice and Criminology, Bond University

Forensic Criminologist, University of Newcastle

Associate Professor, Edith Cowan University

Research fellow, North-West University

Associate professor, The University of Western Australia

Lecturer and Researcher in Criminology, Edith Cowan University

Emeritus Professor of Law and Criminal Justice, University of South Australia

Honorary research affiliate, Centre of Criminology, University of Cape Town

Professor, Family and Sexual Violence, RMIT University

Director and Senior Researcher, Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation, The University of Melbourne

Professor and Director, School of Regulation and Global Governance, Australian National University

Professor and Program Head, Justice Health Research Program, UNSW Sydney

Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Monash University

Matthew Flinders Distinguished Emeritus Professor, Flinders University

Forensic psychologist & Adjunct Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology, University of Canberra

• X (Twitter)
• Unfollow topic Follow topic

Advertisement

Criminological Research and the Death Penalty: Has Research by Criminologists Impacted Capital Punishment Practices?

• Published: 16 April 2019
• Volume 44 , pages 536–580, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

• Gordon P. Waldo 1 &
• Wesley Myers 1  

2347 Accesses

4 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

At the request of the SCJA president this paper addresses five questions. Does criminological research make a difference relative to the death penalty? - If criminological research does make a difference, what is the nature of that difference? - What specific instances can one cite of research findings influencing death penalty policy decisions? Why hasn’t our research made more of a difference? What can we do, either in terms of directing our research or in terms of disseminating it, to facilitate it making a difference? Specific examples of research directly impacting policy are examined. The evidence presented suggests that research on capital punishment has had some impact on policy, but not nearly enough. There is still a high level of ignorance that has limited the impact of criminological research on death penalty policy. The proposed solution is to improve the education of the general public and decision makers in order to increase the impact of criminological research on capital punishment policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Public Sector Criminological Research

Effective Probation in England and Wales? The Rise and Fall of Evidence

Making a Difference in Criminology: Past, Present, and Future

One of the most interesting things the senior author learned in his first statistics class as an undergraduate, which became much clearer when he took his first graduate research methods class, was that if a correlation exists between two variables it does not automatically mean that one of the variables caused the other variable. This is true even if the one that appeared to be the cause (independent variable) met the first criteria for causation and occurred prior to the presumed effect (dependent variable). As he began to teach the first research methods course ever taught in the Criminology Program at Florida State University he also learned about extraneous variables, intervening variables, component variables, antecedent variables, suppressor variables, distorter variables, spurious non-correlations, conditional relationships, conjoint influence, etc. (Rosenberg, 1968 ). These different types of variables will not be discussed, but their existence has relevance in trying to answer the questions posed to the panelists. Instead, reference will be made to ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ influences in this paper because each can be important in bringing about change.

Two other methods the courts have used in this regard is the number of states that have made a significant change in their death penalty statutes, such as the number of states changing the age for execution of juveniles (Thompson v. Oklahoma, 1988 ) . Another method the United States Supreme Court has used is international opinions. “It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion …. The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions” (Roper v. Simmons, 2005 p.11).

Warden describes the first exoneration as follows. “The first of what would become a cavalcade of post-Furman Illinois death row exonerations occurred in 1987 when a young prosecutor, Michael Falconer, came forward with exculpatory evidence that exonerated two condemned Chicagoans, Perry Cobb and Darby Tillis. It is hard to imagine more fortuitous or improbable events than those that led to the exonerations of Cobb and Tillis, who had been sentenced to death for a double murder that occurred a decade earlier.’ In 1983, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed and remanded their case because the trial judge had rejected a defense request to give the jury an accomplice instruction. The prosecution’s star witness, Phyllis Santini, had driven the getaway car used in the crime - admittedly but, she claimed, unwittingly. Chicago Lawyer , an investigative publication … carried a detailed article based on the Illinois Supreme Court opinion and case file. As luck would have it, Falconer, who recently had graduated from law school, read the article, which discussed Santini’s testimony in some depth. Years earlier, Falconer had worked with Santini at a factory and, as he would testify, she had told him that her boyfriend had committed a murder and that she and the boyfriend were working with police and prosecutors to pin it on someone else. “I thought to myself, ‘Jeez, there’s a name from the past,”‘Falconer reflected in a Chicago Lawyer interview. “I read on and started thinking, ‘Holy shit, this is terrible.”‘He called a defense lawyer mentioned in the article, reporting what Santini had told him. At an ensuing bench trial in 1987, Cobb and Tillis were acquitted by a directed verdict on the strength of Falconer’s testimony.” By then, Falconer was a prosecutor in a neighboring jurisdiction.” Cobb and Tillis eventually received gubernatorial pardons based on innocence. As serendipitous as the Cobb and Tillis exonerations” were, they were no more so than many that would follow. … (there were) 20 Illinois death row exonerations -each involving odds-defying fortuity. The error rate among 305 convictions under the 1977 Illinois capital punishment statute was in excess of 6% (Warden, 2012 p. 247–248).

Justice Marshall was careful to fully support his position surrounding the lack of a deterrent effect of the death penalty with two lengthy ‘laundry lists’ of research in the footnotes of his published opinion which are abbreviated here. “See, e. g., Jon Peck, The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Ehrlich and His Critics, 85 Yale L. J. 359 (1976); David Baldus & James Cole, A Comparison of the Work of Thorsten Sellin and Isaac Ehrlich on the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment, 85 Yale L. J. 170 (1975); William Bowers & Glenn Pierce, The Illusion of Deterrence in Isaac Ehrlich’s Research on Capital Punishment, 85 Yale L. J. 187 (1975); Issac Ehrlich. The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death, 65 Am. Econ. Rev. 397 (June 1975); Hook, The Death Sentence, in The Death Penalty in America 146 (Hugo Adam Bedau ed. 1967); Thurston Sellin, The Death Penalty, A Report for the Model Penal Code Project of the American Law Institute (1959).” And “See Passell & Taylor, The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Another View (unpublished Columbia University Discussion Paper 74–7509, Mar. 1975), reproduced in Brief for Petitioner App. E in Jurek v. Texas, O. T. 1975, No. 75–5844; Passell, The Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty: A Statistical Test, 28 Stan. L. Rev. 61 (1975); Baldus & Cole, A Comparison of the Work of Thorsten Sellin & Isaac Ehrlich on the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment, 85 Yale L. J. 170 (1975); Bowers & Pierce, The Illusion of Deterrence in Isaac Ehrlich’s Research on Capital Punishment, 85 Yale L. J. 187 (1975); Peck, The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Ehrlich and His Critics, 85 Yale L. J. 359 (1976). See also Ehrlich, Deterrence: Evidence and Inference, 85 Yale L. J. 209 (1975); Ehrlich, Rejoinder, 85 Yale L. J. 368 (1976)… See also Bailey, Murder and Capital Punishment: Some Further Evidence, 45 Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 669 (1975); W. Bowers, Executions in America 121–163 (1974).”

This only happened once with a legislator who was in favor of the death penalty and opposed to abortion. I later learned from other lobbyist’s that he was known as a ‘weird duck’ and they tried to stay away from him. Fortunately, he is no longer in the legislature.

ABA. (1997). American Bar Association Policy 1997 MY 107: Death Penalty Moratorium Resolution . https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/death_penalty_representation/resources/dp-policy/moratorium-1997.html . Accessed 7 June 2018.

ABA. (2017). Amicus Curiae Briefs.  https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/amicus.html . Accessed 30 Aug 2018.

ABA. (2018a). American Bar Association: Death Penalty due Process Review Project Report to the House of Delegates . https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/death_penalty_representation/resources/dp-policy/moratorium-1997.html . Accessed 7 June 2018.

ABA. (2018b, February 5). Ban death penalty for those 21 or younger . ABA Journal: ABA House says http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/Ban_death_penalty_for_those_21_or_younger_aba_house_says/ . Accessed 31 July 2018.

ACLU. (2016). Capital punishment. American Civil Liberties Union . https://www.aclu.org/issues/capital-punishment . Accessed 7 June 2018.

ALI. (1959, May 8). Model Penal Code: Tentative Draft No. 9. American Law Institute.

ALI. (2009). Report of the council to the membership of the American law institute on the matter of the death penalty. American Law Institute. https://www.ali.org/media/filer_public/3f/ae/3fae71f1-0b2b-4591-ae5c-5870ce5975c6/capital_punishment_web.pdf . Accessed 17 June 2018.

AMA. (n.d.). Capital Punishment: Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 9.7.3. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/capital-punishment . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Amnesty International. (n.d.). Death penalty. Amnesty International USA . https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/ . Accessed 7 June 2018.

An Act Revising the Penalty for Capital Felonies (2012) Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary- 4/4/2012. , § Connecticut Senate, General Assembly.

APA. (2001, August). The Death Penalty in the United States. American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/about/policy/death-penalty.aspx . Accessed 7 June 2018.

APA. (2005). Roper v . Simmons: American Psychological Association http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/roper.aspx . Accessed 22 August 2018.

Google Scholar  

APA. (2018, May 1). APA amicus briefs by year.  http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/index-chron.aspx . Accessed 30 Aug 2018.

APA, American Psychiatric Association, (2018) National Association of Social Workers, & American Academy of Psychiatry and Law. Dassey v. Dittman. , No. 17–1172 (U.S. 2018). https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1172/39982/20180326134136295_Dassey%20v.%20Dittmann%2003.26.18%20Cert%20Stage%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf . Accessed 22 Aug 2018.

APHA. (1986, January 1). Abolition of the Death Penalty. American Public Health Association. https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2014/07/14/13/50/abolition-of-the-death-penalty . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Applebome, P. (2012, April 11). Connecticut House Votes to Repeal Death Penalty. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/nyregion/connecticut-house-votes-to-repeal-death-penalty.html . Accessed 8 June 2018.

ASA. (2015). Amicus Briefs. http://www.asanet.org/amicus-briefs . Accessed 31 Aug 2018.

ASC. (1989). Historical policy positions: Official policy position of the American Society of Criminology with respect to the death penalty. American Society of Criminology . https://www.asc41.com/policies/policyPositions.html . Accessed 7 June 2018.

Atkins v. Virginia. (2002) 536 U.S. 304 (2002).

Ball, J. (2007, May). Illinois’ death penalty: Still too flawed to fix. Campaign to End the Death Penalty . http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/new_abolitionist/may-2007-issue-42/illinois%E2%80%99-death-penalty . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Banner, S. (2003). The death penalty: an American history (third printing.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. press.

Bard, M., & Ellison, K. (1974). Crisis intervention and investigation of forcible rape. Police Chief, 41 (5), 68–73.

Barnhart, C. (Ed.). (1957). Ignorance. The American College Dictionary (p. 600). New York, N.Y: Random House.

Beck, J. C., & Shumsky, R. (1997). A comparison of retained and appointed counsel in cases of capital murder. Law and Human Behavior, 21 (5), 525–538.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bersoff, D. N. (1987). Social science data and the Supreme Court: Lockhart as a case in point. American Psychologist, 42 (1), 52–58.

Bersoff, D. N., & Ogden, D. W. (1987). In the Supreme Court of the United States Lockhart v. McCree: amicus curiae brief for the American Psychological Association. American Psychologist, 42 (1), 59–68.

Bienen, L. B. (2010). Capital punishment in Illinois in the aftermath of the Ryan commutations: Reforms, economic realities, and a new saliency for issues of cost. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100 (4), 1301–1402.

Black, C. L. (1974). Capital punishment: The inevitability of Caprice and Mistake. Norton.

Bohm, R. M. (2017). Deathquest: an introduction to the theory and practice of capital punishment in the United States (Fifth edition.). New York ; London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Bowers, W. J. (1983). The Pervasiveness of Arbitrariness and Discrimination under Post-"Furman" Capital Statutes. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 74 (3), 1067.

Bye, R. T. (1926). Recent History and Present Status of Capital Punishment in the United States. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 17 (2), 234.

Byrd, V., & Allen, D. (2017, February 21). ANA Releases New Position Statement Opposing Capital Punishment. American Nurses Association. https://www.nursingworld.org/news/news-releases/2017-news-releases/ana-releases-new-position-statement-opposing-capital-punishment/ . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Coker v. Georgia. (1977) 433 U.S. 584 (1977).

Cowan, C. L., Thompson, W., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). The effects of death qualification on jurors' predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8 , 53–80.

Culp-Ressler, T. (2014, April 10). One Sentence That Could Help End The Death Penalty In America. Think Progress. https://thinkprogress.org/one-sentence-that-could-help-end-the-death-penalty-in-america-8246f562d923/ . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Donohue, J. J. (2011, October 15). Capital Punishment in Connecticut, 1973–2007: A Comprehensive Evaluation from 4686 Murders to One Execution. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/DonohueCTStudy.pdf . Accessed 8 Jun 2018.

DPIC. (2002). Executions is the U.S. 1608-2002: The ESPY File Executions by State. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/ESPYyear.pdf . Accessed 25 Sep 2018.

DPIC. (2009). Governor bill Richardson signs repeal of the death penalty. Death Penalty Information Center . https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/governor-bill-richardson-signs-repeal-death-penalty . Accessed 8 June 2018.

DPIC. (2016, November 9). States With and Without the Death Penalty. Death Penalty Information Center. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty . Accessed 7 June 2018.

DPIC. (2017, December 31). Death sentences in the United States from 1977 by state and by year. Death Penalty Information Center . https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-sentences-united-states-1977-present . Accessed 7 June 2018.

DPIC. (2018a). Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries.  https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries . Accessed 25 Sep 2018.

DPIC. (2018b). Nebraska Executes Carey Dean Moore in First Execution in 21 Years. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/7175 . Accessed 25 Sep 2018.

DPIC. (2018c). Recent Legislative Activity. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/recent-legislative-activity#currentyear . Accessed 25 Sep 2018.

DPIC. (2018d). States With and Without the Death Penalty.  https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty . Accessed 8 Apr 2019.

DPIC. (2018e). The Death Penalty: An International Perspective.  https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-international-perspective#interexec . Accessed 25 Sep 2018.

DPIC. (2018f, May 16). Searchable execution database. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/views-executions . Accessed 25 Sep 2018.

DPIC. (2018g, July 12). Poll: Washington State Voters Overwhelmingly Prefer Life Sentences to Death Penalty. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/7149 . Accessed 25 Sep 2018.

Eberhart v. Georgia. (1977) 433 U.S. 917 (1977).

Eckholm, E. (2016, August 2). Delaware Supreme Court Rules State’s Death Penalty Unconstitutional. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/delaware-supreme-court-rules-states-death-penalty-unconstitutional.html. Accessed 8 June 2018 .

Ellsworth, P. C. (1988). Unpleasant facts: The Supreme Court's response to empirical research on capital punishment. In K. C. Haas & J. A. Inciardi (Eds.), Challenging capital punishment: Legal and social science approaches (pp. 177–211). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Enmund V. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782 (1982),

Epstein, L. (1992). The supreme court and legal change: Abortion and the death penalty. Univ of North Carolina Press.

Erickson, R. J., & Simon, R. J. (1998). The use of social science data in supreme court decisions. University of Illinois Press.

European Commission. (2018, June 7). Fight against death penalty. International Cooperation and Development. https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sectors/human-rights-and-governance/democracy-and-human-rights/fight-against-death-penalty_en . Accessed 7 June 2018.

Ford v. Wainwright. (1986) 477 U.S. 399 (1986).

Furman v Georgia. (1972) 408 U.S. 238 (1972).

Gallup Inc. (n.d.). Death penalty. Gallup.com . http://news.gallup.com/poll/1606/Death-Penalty.aspx . Accessed 21 January 2018.

Gregg v Georgia. (1976) 428 U.S. 153 (1976).

Grinberg, E. (2009, March 18). New Mexico governor repeals death penalty in state. CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/18/new.mexico.death.penalty/ . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Hall v Florida. (2014) 527 U.S. ___ (2014).

Hall, H. V. (2008). Forensic Psychology and Neuropsychology for Criminal and Civil Cases . CRC Press.

Haney, C. (Ed.). (1984). Death qualification [Special issue]. Law and Human Behavior, 8 (1&2).

Haney, C. (2016, August 16). Floridians prefer life without parole over capital punishment for murderers. Tampa Bay Times. http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/column-floridians-prefer-life-without-parole-over-capital-punishment-for/2289719 . Accessed 7 June 2018.

Hillsman, S. (2005). Executive Officer’s column: What really mattered to the supreme court. American Sociological Association. http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/footnotes/mayjun05/exec.html . Accessed 22 August 2018.

Hodgson v. Minnesota. (1990) 497 U.S. 417 (1990).

Hooks v. Georgia. (1977) 433 U.S. 917 (1977).

Hughes, C. C., & Robinson, M. (2013). Perceptions of law enforcement officers on capital punishment in the United States. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences; Thirunelveli, 8 (2), 153–165.

Hurst v Florida. (2016) 577 U.S. ___ (2016).

In re Kemmler. (1890) 136 U.S. 436 (1890).

International Commission Against the Death Penalty. (2013). How States Abolish the Death Penalty. http://www.icomdp.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Report-How-States-abolition-the-death-penalty.pdf . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Keil, T. J., & Vito, G. F. (1995). Race and the death penalty in Kentucky murder trials: 1976-1991. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20 (1), 17–36.

Kennedy v. Louisiana. (2008) 554 U.S. 407 (2008).

Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment. (2008). Final Report to the General Assembly . https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5300/sc5339/000113/012000/012331/unrestricted/20100208e.pdf . Accessed 8 June 2018.

NAACP. (2017, January 17). Death penalty fact sheet. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People . http://www.naacp.org/latest/naacp-death-penalty-fact-sheet/ . Accessed 7 June 2018.

New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission. (2007). New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission Report. http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/committees/dpsc_final.pdf . Accessed 8 June 2018.

New Mexico Coalition to Repeal the Death Penalty. (2017). New Mexico death penalty action. New Mexico Coalition to Repeal the Death Penalty . http://www.nmrepeal.org/ . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Oliphant, B. (2016, September 29). Support for death penalty lowest in more than four decades. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/29/support-for-death-penalty-lowest-in-more-than-four-decades/ . Accessed 31 July 2018.

Oliphant, B. (2018, June 11). Public support for the death penalty ticks up. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/06/11/us-support-for-death-penalty-ticks-up-2018/ . Accessed 31 July 2018.

Oxford, A. (2018, February 3). Swift end for House bill to reinstate death penalty. The Santa Fe New Mexican. http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/legislature/swift-end-for-house-bill-to-reinstate-death-penalty/article_4dec9f33-0253-50c3-8e22-16a12ba01f9a.html . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Packer, H. L. (1963). Making the Punishment Fit the Crime. Harvard Law Review, 77 , 1071.

Panetti v. Quarterman. (2007) 551 U.S. 930 (2007).

Paternoster, R. (1991). Prosecutorial discretion and capital sentencing in North and South Carolina. In R. M. Bohm (Ed.), The death penalty in America: Current research (pp. 39–52). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Paternoster, R., & Kazyaka, A. (1988). Racial considerations in capital punishment: The failure of evenhanded justice. In K. C. Haas & J. A. Inciardi (Eds.), Challenging capital punishment: Legal and social science approaches (pp. 113–148). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pentin, E. (2018, August 2). Pope Francis Changes Catechism to Say Death Penalty ‘Inadmissible.’ http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-francis-changes-catechism-to-declare-death-penalty-inadmissible . Accessed 25 Sep 2018.

Pierce, G. L., & Radelet, M. L. (2002). Race, religion, and death sentencing in Illinois, 1988-1997. Oregon Law Review, 81 , 39–96.

Powell v. Alabama. (1932) 287 U.S. 45 (1932).

Quinnipiac University National Poll. (2018, March 22). Most U.S. Voters Back Life Over Death Penalty. QU Poll. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2530 . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Robinson, M. B. (2008). Death nation: the experts explain American capital punishment . Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/prentice hall.

Roper v. Simmons. (2005) 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

Rosenberg, M. (1968). The logic of survey analysis. New York: Basic.

Sanger, R. M. (2003). Comparison of the Illinois commission report on capital punishment with the capital punishment system in California. Santa Clara Law Review, 44 , 101–234.

Saklofske, D. H., Schwean, V. L., & Reynolds, C. R. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Child Psychological Assessment: Psychological Evaluation | Psychological Testing . Oxford University Press.

Singleton v. Norris. (2003) 267 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2003).

Sorensen, J. R., & Wallace, D. H. (1995). Capital punishment in Missouri: Examining the issue of racial disparity. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 13 (1), 61–81.

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. (2013). Table 2.51.2013: Attitudes toward the death penalty for persons convicted of murder. https://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t2512013.pdf . Accessed 21 January 2018.

Stanford v. Kentucky. (1989) 492 U.S. 361 (1989).

Thomson, E. (1997). Discrimination and the Death Penalty in Arizona. Criminal Justice Review, 22 (1), 65–76.

Thompson v. Oklahoma. (1988) 487 U.S. 815 (1988).

Top Stories. (2017, October 5). Lower house in US state of Delaware votes to reinstate death penalty. Top Stories. http://www.dw.com/en/lower-house-in-us-state-of-delaware-votes-to-reinstate-death-penalty/a-38781130 . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Trop v. Dulles. (1958) 356 U.S. 86 (1958).

UN General Assembly. (1989, November 15). Resolution 44/824: 2nd Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/44/128 . Accessed 7 June 2018.

UN General Assembly. (2015, February 4). Resolution 69/186: Moratorium on the use of the death penalty. http://dag.un.org/bitstream/handle/11176/158748/A_RES_69_186-EN.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y . Accessed 7 June 2018.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. (1980). Bishops’ statement on capital punishment. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops . http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/statement-on-capital-punishment.cfm . Accessed 7 June 2018.

Vollum, S., Carmen, R. V. del, Frantzen, D., Miguel, C. S., Cheeseman, K., Carmen, R. V. del, … Cheeseman, K. (2015). The death penalty : Constitutional issues, commentaries, and case briefs. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315721293

Waldo, G. P., & Chiricos, T. G. (1977). Work release and recidivism: An empirical evaluation of a social policy. Evaluation Quarterly, 1(1), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X7700100104 .

Wanger, E. G. (2017). Fighting the death penalty . East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Warden, R. (2012). How and why Illinois abolished the death penalty. Law and Inequality, 30 (2), 244–286.

Weems v. United States. (1910) 217 U.S. 349 (1910).

White, D. L. (2018, March 2). Survey Shows Most Pinellas County Voters Oppose Death Penalty. St. Pete Patch. https://patch.com/florida/stpete/survey-shows-most-pinellas-county-voters-oppose-death-penalty . Accessed 7 June 2018.

Wilkerson v. Utah. (1879) 99 U.S. 130 (1879).

Wilson, M. J. (2008). The application of the death penalty in New Mexico, July 1979 through December 2007: An empirical analysis. New Mexico Law Review, 38 , 255–302.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, 112 S. Copeland Street, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-1273, USA

Gordon P. Waldo & Wesley Myers

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gordon P. Waldo .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Waldo, G.P., Myers, W. Criminological Research and the Death Penalty: Has Research by Criminologists Impacted Capital Punishment Practices?. Am J Crim Just 44 , 536–580 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-019-09478-4

Download citation

Received : 02 April 2019

Accepted : 02 April 2019

Published : 16 April 2019

Issue Date : 15 August 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-019-09478-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Death penalty
• Capital punishment
• Impact of research
• Policy implications
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Social Sciences

© 2024 Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse LLC . All rights reserved. ISSN: 2153-5760.

Disclaimer: content on this website is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to provide medical or other professional advice. Moreover, the views expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of Inquiries Journal or Student Pulse, its owners, staff, contributors, or affiliates.

Home | Current Issue | Blog | Archives | About The Journal | Submissions Terms of Use :: Privacy Policy :: Contact

Need an Account?

Forgot password? Reset your password »

Akossiwa Agbenou

Article review #1.

Article review #1 Title: Digital Criminal Investigations in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: A Comprehensive Overview Akossiwa Agbenou CYSE 201S February 11, 2024 Describe how the topic relates to the principles of the social sciences? In the age of artificial intelligence (AI), the article offers a thorough review of digital. criminal investigation, covering its development, approaches, difficulties, and legal. ramifications. Digital criminal investigation touches on several social scientific issues, especially those related to criminology, sociology, and law. It includes examining how people behave in digital settings, examining how technology affects criminal activity, and putting legal. frameworks in place to control the use of digital evidence and investigations (Faqir, 2023). Study’s research questions or hypotheses The study’s research questions and hypotheses focus on how artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to enhance digital criminal investigations. In particular, the research seeks to identify the AI approaches used by law enforcement, determine the legal standing of evidence obtained by AI, guarantee adherence to legal standards, and investigate future developments and uses of AI in the sector (Faqir, 2023). Types of research methods used Descriptive and analytical research methods are used in the study’s qualitative research methodology. Primary legal papers and secondary sources, such literature reviews from respectable legal magazines and internet databases, are used in the data collection process. Types of data and analysis done Legal codes, legislative opinions, technological resources, and scientific literature pertaining to criminal procedural laws and digital investigations are among the data kinds that have been examined (Faqir, 2023). To glean conclusions and implications from the gathered data, content analysis techniques are employed in the analysis. Concepts from the PowerPoint presentations relate to the article The article makes use of concepts from the PowerPoint presentations, such as how technology shapes society, the ethical implications of artificial intelligence, and the difficulties underprivileged groups experience in obtaining justice. The article addresses the moral and legal obligations that come with conducting digital investigations, such as protecting privacy and making sure the legal system is impartial. How the topic relates to the challenges, concerns and contributions of marginalized groups By emphasizing the value of protecting individual rights and liberties within digital investigations, the theme links to the difficulties, worries, and contributions of marginalized groups. It highlights how important it is to have legal frameworks that protect privacy and uphold equity, especially for vulnerable groups who may be disproportionately impacted by digital monitoring and investigation methods (Faqir, 2023). The overall contributions of the studies to society The article benefits society by offering perspectives on how digital criminal investigation. is changing and how AI is being incorporated. It tackles important research questions, looks at. ethical and legal issues, and highlights how crucial it is to uphold established legal frameworks, be transparent and be fair in the pursuit of justice in the digital age. References Faqir, R. S. A. (2023). Digital Criminal Investigations in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: A Comprehensive Overview. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 17(2), 77–94. https://cybercrimejournal.com/menuscript/index.php/cybercrimejournal/article/view/189/ 71

April 28, 2024

Uncategorized

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

PERSONAL IMAGE

• Entries RSS
• Comments RSS
• Old Dominion University WordPress

Social Media

© 2024 agbenou04 — Powered by WordPress

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑