Theoretical Criminology [Hardcover]

*sigh*

I really struggled with this book. Not because of the depth of the content, but because of its shallowness. It was recommended reading for a postgraduate Masters course (an MPhil), yet the material struck me as skittish and brief - at best. The authors seem to bounce from one topic to another, rarely staying with any one theory or idea long enough to give the reader (any reader) a decent understanding of the topics they're bouncing off.

Even worse is the indexing system. For my sins, if I'm reading a book for a degree, then I want to be able to draw on it. To reference it. To be able to pick it up, find a half-remembered concise sentence that supports an argument, and to use it to evidence a point. I'm more than happy to read books that I'll never end up using - but I want there to be the faintest hope that my reading might, might, might some day be useful.

Even if there was anything of sufficient depth in here to be useful in your average postgrad (or undergrad?) assignment, the indexing system is an utter mess. I'm flabberghasted that any half-decent copy-editor / editor could let it reach the shelves. For some utterly incomprehensible reason, names are excluded from the index. There is no separate author index; it just seems to be a principle of the text that authors / theorists are not to be indexed (except as obscure subcategories). This is a book about theories; not about authors.

In my experience, this makes it a complete, convoluted nightmare to navigate. Want to dig up something on Merton? Well... the index hops straight from Mesomorphy to Mexican American. Want to find something on Sheldon? Not a chance, unless you remember he was the bloke who wrote about mesomorphy. Looking for Beccaria? No worries! As soon as you understand that he's filed under 'Law, Criminal', you'll find listed underneath it 'Beccaria's theory, and...' Why is he listed under Law, Criminal? Your guess is as good as mine. It could as well have been listed under any one of a number of other categories. But you've got to guess right, or you'll never find it.

Oh, and if you're still looking for Merton, have a look under 'Classical criminology' (though if you're looking for Beccaria there, you're unlikely to have any joy...)

I can understand - I can really understand - that for some lecturers, this might look like a really good addition to a reading list. It romps through EVERYTHING (!) It's really really user-friendly (no unnecessarily big words). It is an introduction to everything, and tries to cover every imaginable base. In 340 pages, and eighteen chapters that are - clearly - meant to make some kind of conceptual sense.

Speaking personally, I found it hopeless. A chaotic, painfully light romp that left me feeling as if I'd learnt nothing, except to be wary of hardback-only basic texts. And worse than that, not only had I learnt nothing, there was absolutely no hope of drawing anything meaningful out of it for graded work. My copy is marked up to the hilt. And despite my best efforts to render it useful, meaningful and constructive... It is still - in my eyes - worthless for all practical and academic purposes.

In stark contrast, something like the Open University's 'Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings' contains 594 pages of original texts, covering virtually all criminological bases. It's substantially cheaper, and a phenomenal introduction to theory. Admittedly, it relies on the reader being willing / able to read and interpret the source texts themselves - but set next to Vold, Bernard and Snipes, I cannot recommend it enough.

i used this book for essay WHAT IS CRIME? as it shows really well how harms and religion created crime.
i do not think i have read any other chapter, but that is my MO.
i would never use a text book ouot right, but this has all the ideas i needed and i found better sources. as expected