This document discusses how criminological theories have influenced criminal justice practices and policies. It provides examples of how theories such as labeling theory, social control theory, differential association theory, and classical criminology have guided the development of diversion programs, police athletics leagues, weed and seed programs, and stiffer penalties like three-strikes laws. The document emphasizes that theories are important frameworks for evidence-based practice in criminal justice.

1. Criminological Theories and Practice
Criminological Theories and PracticeTheory is an important aspect of any profession as it
serves to guide practice, more so if the practice is to be evidence based. The existence of
theories therefore acts as theoretical frameworks upon which practice is based. Criminal
justice is no different, as knowledge of the various theories not only helps in guiding
professionals in their approaches to cases, but it also helps in the formulation of policies.
Policies such as diversion programs, graffiti reduction programs, the three strike laws as
well as the stiffer penalties such as the death penalty have all in one way or another been
inspired by criminological theories of crime causation.One means of sentencing that can be
said to have been influenced by theory is the diversion program; a form of sentencing aimed
at ensuring the offender does not get a criminal record. In this case, the offender is usually
forced to meet certain requirements such as provision of community service, restitution,
education in order to avoid future offenses as well as avoidance of situations that may result
in another similar offence. The first theory that clearly influences the formulation of this
approach to sentencing is the labeling theory. The labeling theory avers that the labeling of
an individual as deviant usually results in lower self esteem, self rejection and consequently
further engagement in deviant behavior. Further, it posits that once labeled gaining
acceptance back into society may prove a problem, as majority of those who accept the
labeling of others also have a hard time changing their opinions of them, even in cases
where evidence has been presented to suggest otherwise. The newly formed status of
“ criminal” dictates how an individual is identified in the public, and may push the
individual into forfeiting any further attempts they may have wanted to have towards
conforming. (Macionis & Gerber, 2010). These programs, by ensuring that the individual
does not get labeled as a criminal attempt to avoid the effect that labeling would otherwise
have on the individual and push him/her towards engaging in repeat offenses. This
principle also applies when it comes to the expunging of records, as by doing away with the
criminal label, the individuals are not defined by their previous mistakes and are therefore
able to avoid engaging in further criminal behavior due to the burden that the “ criminal”
label would otherwise have given them. Indeed findings by Bernburg, Krohn and Rivera
(2006) in a study on adolescents to establish whether or not the labeling theory can be used
to explain crime, find that adolescents who had been involved in the juvenile justice system
were prone to engage in further delinquent behavior by associating with other delinquent
peers or even joining groups of other delinquents such as gangs. This therefore means that
diversion programs do help, as they ensure the individual avoids being sentenced and

2. therefore avoids what would otherwise be a criminal label and the subsequent stigma
suffered could drive them into associating with fellow delinquents, leading to further crime
if looked at from the differential association theory.The police athletics league, at times
referred to as the police activities league, refers to the program through which members of
the police force actually act as mentors and coaches for young people, in sporting activities,
homework or other activities. The programs are mainly aimed at building character,
keeping the youths off drugs as well as strengthening the bond between the community and
the police department. This approach towards eliminating crime can be claimed to be linked
to follow the concepts of the social control theory, more so when it comes to instilling self
control thus achieving internal control. Another way, through which control is achieved by
this program, is indirectly through the police officers who act as figures the children can
identify with thus influencing behavior positively. By building close relationships with the
children they mentor, the police officers are able to exert indirect control, as the children
would be afraid of disappointing them by engaging in delinquent behavior (Hirschi, 2002).
This approach is also based on the social disorganization theory, which argues that crime
can be related to the breakdown of social institutions as well as communal relationships. As
such the approach attempts to foster a sense of community, strengthening the communal
relationships and creating a sense of organization within larger groups which according to
the social disorganization theory, does deter crime (Bursik, 1988). The same issue of
creating communal relationships as well as strengthening social institutions applies when it
comes to the midnight basketball leagues, which were intended to foster good community
relationships. Based on the findings by Sampson and Groves (1989) as well as the findings
of Bursik and Grasmick (1993) that the community structure in terms of race,
socioeconomic status, residential mobility as well as family disruptions indeed affect the
crime rates due to the sparse nature of friendship networks, unsupervised youth groups as
well as low organizational participation, programs such as the police activities leagues and
midnight basketball leagues do affect these variables and are bound to reduce the crime
rates according to the social disorganization theory (Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003).The
differential association theory could also be said to have played a very important role in the
development of the “ Weed and Seed” program, as it identifies the potential influence the
company one keeps has on their behavior or their affinity to engage in criminal activities.
The differential association theory posits that through interacting with criminals,
individuals are able to learn new attitudes, values, motives and techniques for committing
crimes (Sutherland, 1947). As such, it therefore seems prudent to try and separate the
criminal elements from the rest of society in order to ensure that they do not influence the
rest of society. This is essentially the main principle behind the weed and seed program,
which attempts to weed out violent elements within various target areas through the help
of members of the community, thus reducing drug trafficking, gang activity and violent
crimes amongst other criminal activities. The program itself integrates community policing,
law enforcement and prevention measures in order to reduce crime. By weeding out the
rogue elements, the police department ensures that crime coming about as a learned
behavior is at its minimum, as any relationships or associations these criminals might have
with others are cut short. In addition, Matsueda (2000) further posits that according to the

3. differential association theory of social organization, the crime rates within communities or
groups are essentially affected by how the group itself is organized to fight crime compared
to how it is organized in favor of crime commitment. The seed aspect of the program
therefore attempts to ensure that the community’ s organization against crime outweighs
its organization in favor of crime, a clear application of concepts from the differential
association theory. The findings of Kissner and Pyrooz (2009) on the influence of familial
gang involvement on subsequent gang membership, serve to highlight the influence close
relationships do have on the potential learning and subsequent engagement in criminal
behavior, therefore justifying the need to “ weed” out criminal elements in an attempt to
prevent those around them from being influenced into engaging in delinquent behavior.Stiff
penalties such as the death penalty and the three strikes rule are founded on the classical
school of criminology which essentially believes that punishment is actually a deterrent if it
is proportional to the crime (Landau, 2002). Another theory which could also be used to
explain the application of stiffer penalties is the social control theory. The theory argues
that punishment or rewards can actually be used to bring about direct control over an
individual or their criminal activities and ensure compliance. Aspects of the differential
association theory could also be argued to influence the application of stiffer penalties,
more so the three strikes rule, as it would ensure that the favorable definitions for breaking
the law do not outweigh the unfavorable definitions, thus discouraging repeat offenders
from engaging in criminal activities.Overall, it is quite clear that theories and research
inform the development of policies and programs used in the criminal justice department
and as such cannot be ignored. They not only provide a theoretical framework for practice
but actually lead to the adoption of evidence based practices, making the criminal justice
department more effective when it comes to combating crime.ReferencesBursik, R. (1988).
Social Disorganization and Theories of Crime and Delinquency. Criminology 26.Bursik, R., &
Grasmick, H. (1993). Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions Of Effective Community
Control. New York: Lexington Books.Bernburg, G., Krohn, M., & Rivera, C. (2006). Official
Labeling, Criminal Embeddedness, and Subsequent Delinquency. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency43(1), 67- 88.Hirschi, T. (2002). Causes of delinquency. New Jersey:
Transaction Publishers.Kissner, J., & Pyrooz, D. (2009). Self-control, differential association,
and gang membership: A theoretical and empirical extension of the literature. Journal of
Criminal Justice 37, 478 487.Kubrin, C., & Weitzer, R. (2003). New Directions in Social
Disorganization Theory. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency 40, 374-402.Landau,
Norma (2002). Law, Crime, and English Society, 1660-1830. Cambridge University Press. p.
118.Macionis, J., & Gerber, L. (2010). Sociology. Canada: Pearson Education.Matsueda, R.
(2000). Differential Association Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/matsueda/DA.pdfSampson, R. & Groves, W. (1989).
“ Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social Disorganization Theory. American Journal
of Sociology 94, 774-802.Sutherland, E. (1947). Principles of Criminology. Philadelphia: J. B.
Lippincott