Religiosity and Criminality PDF

Pacific Sociological Association
Religiosity and Criminality: Evidence and Explanations of Complex Relationships

Author(s): Lee Ellis
Source: Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Oct., 1985), pp. 501-520
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389231 .
Accessed: 03/11/2013 00:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
University of California Press and Pacific Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Sociological Perspectives.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Sun, 3 Nov 2013 00:14:54 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RELIGIOSITY AND CRIMINALITY
Evidence and Explanations of
Complex Relationships
LEE ELLIS
Minot State College
Assertions about the relationship (or, sometimes, the lack of a rela-
tionship) between religiosity and criminality are examined in light of
over 50 research studies, paying special attention to how criminality
and particularly religiosity were operationalized in each study. These
studies reveal that three religiosity-criminality relationships have been
established. The best documented relationship is between church at-
tendance and crime rates. At least among church members, the evidence
consistently indicates that frequent church attenders have lower crime
rates than infrequent attenders, especially regarding victimless offenses.
Second, among the main Western religions, membership in the Jewish
religion is associated with lower crime rates, compared to Christian
religious membership as a whole; and, among Christians, Protestants
as a whole have lower crime rates than Catholics. Third, belief in an
afterlife with divine punishment possible, at least among persons who
consider themselves members of an organized religion, is associated
with lower crime rates. Four conventional explanations of these associa-
tions are assessed.
Over the years, the belief that a lack of religious training and
commitment is a major cause of crime (including delinquency)
has been suggested repeatedly in print (Cooley, 1927: 14; Coogan,
1945, 1952, 1954; Teeters and Reinemann, 1950: 158; Costello,
1951: 353; Educational Policies Commission, 1951; Hronke,
1955; Lee, 1957; Webb and Webb, 1957; Benson, 1960: 501;
Neumeyer, 1961: 236, Travers and Davis, 1961: 220; Cortes,
1965: 122; Blatt, 1967: 302; Hoover, 1968: 12; Repole, 1977:
10). Such a view is held by at least a third of the general popula-
tion according to recent surveys both in the United States (Jensen,
1981) and in Great Britain (Banks et al., 1975). Also reflective
of this belief is the practice of encouraging/requiring regular
SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES, Vol. 28 No. 4, October 1985 501-520
o
1985 Pacific Sociological Assn.
501
502 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES / OCTOBER 1985
church attendance as part of crime and delinquency prevention
and rehabilitation programs (Hager, 1957; Gannon, 1970: 119;
Misra, 1983: 35).
Nevertheless, social scientists have been skeptical about the
existence of an inverse religiosity-criminality relationship, par-
ticularly one that would imply that increasing a person's religiosity
would cause a decrease in his or her criminal tendencies (Ben-
son, 1960: 502; Falk, 1961; President's Commission, 1967: 317;
Hirschi and Stark, 1969; Schur, 1969: 82; Sutherland and Cressey,
1974: 234). In fact, quite a number of social scientists have argued
that, if a relationship exists between religiosity and criminality,
it is probably a positive one (Ellis, 1910: 185; Bonger, 1969:
210; Lombroso, 1918: 144; Steiner, 1924; Reckless and Smith,
1932: 151; von Hentig, 1948: 334; Sheldon, 1949: 846; Barnes
and Teeters, 1951: 184; Argyle, 1959: 174; Lunden, 1964: 154).
This assertion, when explained, usually has centered around
arguments that both strong religious convictions and criminali-
ty tend to be associated with low intelligence and/or education
levels (Parmalee, 1918), or with low social status generally (Schur,
1969: 84).
In justifying their conclusion that an inverse religiosity-
criminality relationship does not exist, a number of social
scientists have pointed to what seemed to be conflicting evidence
(to be reviewed shortly). Those who have argued that religiosity
does prevent crime have sometimes charged that a great deal
of the social science skepticism reflects an antireligious bias
among social scientists rather than an objective assessment of
the evidence (Coogan, 1952: 29; Elliott, 1952: 835; also see Stark
et al., 1980: 49).
Fueling this controversy in recent years has been mounting
evidence since 1970 that an inverse relationship does exist between
at least some measures of religiosity and criminality. Specifi-
cally, seven studies in the past 15 years, all using relatively
sophisticated research designs and large samples, have concluded
that an inverse religiosity-criminality relationship actually does
exist, although what the relationship implies from a causal stand-
point is still an open question (Rhodes and Reiss, 1970; Burkett
and White, 1974; Albrecht et al., 1977; Higgins and Albrecht,
1977; Jensen and Erickson, 1979; Elifson et al., 1983; Tittle and
Ellis / RELIGIOSITY AND CRIMINALITY 503
Welch, 1983). Without much of a theoretical basis for explain-
ing such findings, most contemporary texts in criminology and
delinquency simply avoid treating the entire issue.
EFFORTS TO EXPLAIN NEGATIVE
RELIGIOSITY-CRIMINALITY RELATIONSHIPS
Why might people who are "more religious" commit fewer
crimes than those who are "less religious"? Setting aside the
question of what constitutes "religiosity" for the moment, social
scientists have offered at least four identifiable explanations for
the existence of a negative relationship.
First, some have contended that whatever relationship exists
is essentially coincidental (or spurious); that is, it is merely a
function of variables that just happen to correlate with both
religiosity and criminality-for example, education levels and
social status (e.g., Schur, 1969: 84; Sutherland and Cressey, 1974:
234). Evidence supporting this coincidental social class ex-
planation has come from multiple regression studies that have
been able to reduce negative religiosity-criminality relationships
(usually to, or nearly to, nonsignificance) by statistically con-
trolling for such variables as number of drug-using friends, poor
school performance, and coming from unstable family situa-
tions (Rhodes and Reiss, 1970: 87; Elifson et al., 1983). Implicit
in such procedures, of course, is the assumption that these
nonreligious variables are "closer to" the real causes of criminali-
ty than are the religious variables. In other words, one could
presumably have reduced the relationship between criminality
and, say, number of drug-using peer relationships by first con-
trolling for the religious variables.
The other three explanations all predict that religiosity and
criminality are inversely related, not for coincidental reasons but
because religious involvement really does prevent criminal
behavior. The causal explanation that has been most popular
may be called the "group solidarity explanation." Going back
at least to Durkheim (1915, 1961: 102), social scientists have
argued that religion is a focal point of group solidarity and com-
mitment to a common set of moral principles (see Hoult, 1958:
31; Stark et al., 1980: 43; Stack and Kanavy, 1983: 68). To the
degree that criminal laws embody the moral principles of a par-
ticular religion, strong adherence to that religion should result
in fewer violations of those criminal laws than weak (or non-)
religious adherence (Davis and Moore, 1945; Davis, 1948: 371;
Tappan, 1949: 514; Erikson, 1966: 19; O'Dea, 1966: 14; Fitz-
patrick, 1967: 315; Powers, 1967: 123; Lyerly and Skipper, 1981:
396; Arnold and Brungardt, 1983: 154).
Next, some proponents of punishment or conditioning-based
learning theories have noted that most religions teach that viola-
tions of moral principles may result in sanctions in an afterlife,
and that detection is certain. Thus to the degree that threat of
punishment deters behavior and the behavior is considered
immoral according to the religious teachings, strong adherents
to religions should commit fewer offenses than weak (or non-)
adherents (Miner, 1931: 429; Smith, 1949: 362; Broom and
Selznick, 1963: 397; Martin and Fitzpatrick, 1964: 91; Haviland,
1983: 371; also see Breuer, 1982: 130). This explanation of why
a negative religiosity-criminality relationship should exist may
be called the "hell fire explanation" (Miner, 1931: 429; Hirschi
and Stark, 1969). The only significant qualification to it has been
to note that most Christian religious doctrines hold that divine
forgiveness (or absolution) can be too easily obtained for threats
of divine sanctions to be really effective (Bonger, 1936: 135; Taft
and England, 1964: 219; Hurwitz and Christiansen, 1983: 229).
Finally, at least one social scientist has argued that religiosity
and criminality may be inversely related in part because religiosity
reflects a general inclination to obey authority (Miner, 1931:
429). This explanation will be called the "obedience-to-authority
explanation."
THE EVIDENCE TO DATE ON THE
RELIGIOSITY-CRIMINALITY RELATIONSHIP'
A total of 56 studies were located that contained evidence
bearing upon the religiosity-criminality relationships. Of these
studies, 17 contained information of a denominational nature
only (i.e., which religious groups have the highest and lowest
crime rates) and will be discussed later. The initial focus will
be on the 39 studies that have related some measure of "religious
intensity" (regardless of religious denomination) with criminal
or delinquency involvement.
Early in the collection and attempt to synthesize these studies,
it became obvious that several quite disparate operational
measures of religiosity and criminality were used in the various
studies and that this could be a major reason for their osten-
sibly contradictory findings (see Nagel, 1960: 285; Martin and
Fitzpatrick, 1964: 91; O'Dea, 1966: 11).
Although other classification schemes for both sets of opera-
tional measures could prove useful, in this report, six categories
of operational measures for religiosity and three categories of
operational measures for criminality were identified. For religiosi-
ty, the categories were two "overt behavior categories" (church
membership and frequency of church attendance), and three
"belief categories" (belief in God, belief in an afterlife with divine
sanctions possible, and other beliefs), plus a sixth category of
various composite or vaguely specified religiosity measures.
Wherever possible, victimful offenses (aggressive and property
crimes) were distinguished from victimless offenses. This distinc-
tion was made in light of two recent studies that indicated that
the religiosity-criminality relationship could be different for these
two categories of crime (Burkett and White, 1974: 456; Albrecht
et al., 1977: 270; also see Middleton and Putney, 1962). Most
studies have treated these types of offenses together, so a third
category of "all or unspecified offenses" also was used.
RELIGIOUS INTENSITY STUDIES
Results from cross-tabulating the six categories of religiosity
measures with the three categories of criminality are shown in
Table 1. In addition, Table 1 shows whether the reported rela-
tionships were essentially positive, negative, or nonexistent.
Church membership. Turning first to church membership, one
can see in the second column of Table 1 that evidence is very
TABLE
1
A
Summary
of
the
Relationship
Between
Religiosity
and
Criminality
Various
Types
of
Operational
Measures
of
Religiosity
Belief
Aspects
of
Religiosity
cy;g7
Church,
Synagogue
or
Sunday;
8eliein
Persona
Beie
i
a
Afterlif
Ote
Belief
(e.g.,
Unclear
Synagogue)
1
ch,
Atteace
r
n5cY
God
and/or
Si
h
mir
Salien
e
of
R1eligion,
Measures
of
Supernatural
Beings
for
Sinful
Behavior
Belief
in
Prayer)
Religiosity
Bonger
in
Hir-itz
&
Wilson
&
MacLean
1974:
Christiansen
1983:209
849
T+
_
Ellis
1910:189;
F
lrchiscun
1924;
Schlapp
&
Smith
1928:
Middleton
&
Fay
1941
p
sitive
Miner
1931:431;
ILiddleton
&
Fay
57
Reli8losity/
~
e
1941;
MiddletoAn
F
nigt
1941;
Crimina7iLyI
Dunni
17loc
&
Fl1n
1956:232
A..ociation
---
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
--
----
----
---
---
----
----
----
-
-~~~~~
-~~~~~
-~~~
*
-
-
-
-
-
.
1Dentler
&
Monroe
1961:737,
Middleton
&
Putney
Hirschi
&
SLark
1969:
Middleton
8
Putney
Midd
eton
&
Putney
1962:150;
1962:149
211
1962:150
cirschi
&
St-rk
1969.211
0
_
Kvaraccus
1944:288
Mursell
1930:172;
A1en
&
Middleton
&
Wright
Argyle
1959:100
Absence
of
a*
-
aandhu
.1967:264
1941:142
Rel
igiosity/
Criminalijty
a
Association
-
__
_
_
__
_
_
._
_
_
__
_
_
-_____----
--_____,------
-----
------
------
-__
_
_
_
-__
_
_
_
--___
_
Burkett
&
White
1974;
Jensen
&
Elifson,
et
al.
1983
Burkett
&
White
1974:
Elifsonl,
et
a1.
1983
E
c
Erickson
1979:163;
Elifson.
et
459;
Jensen
&
Erickson
al.
1983;
ltiggAns
&
Albrecht
1979:163:
Elifson,
et
1977
a1.
1983
_
_
~~~~~~~~~~~Miner 1931:
Healy
&
Bronner
Nel5s4;Taes&Snhl7
o
Rye~~~~~~i~191
;6yA8;78
1958t147;
Travers
&
Singh
1979
Q
1936:70;
Middlton
&
Wright
0871s
1961;
61188
&
Relissty
1941:144;
Kvaraceus
1944:288;
Sar0881
1967:264
Crimionaity/
Glueck
6
G1ue7k
1950:166;
1968;
Ascriationa
.a
.______._______. .
...
:64
*
(cnt_nuedL
._
.
__________.
.
.
_
_
_
_
__
_
_
__..__
_
_
887171178on
101Middleton
&
Putney
1962:150;
Middleton
&
Putney
Burkett
6
Whi8
e
1974:
Hassett
1981;49
M1idd1eton
Putney
a
c
Burkett
6
Whit.
1974:459;
Donovan
962:149;
Albrecht,
et
459;
Albrecht,
et
61.
1962:150;
876118831
8
1977;
AL
1recht,
et
al.
1977:270;
,I.
1977-270
1977;:270;
Jensen
&
Jessor
1975:147
Jeraen
8
Erickson
1979:163;
Erickon
1979:163
_>
o
_
_
_
_
18
d
&
1786811
1983
_
c
_s
CCao,-Saunrcrs,
et
al.
1944;
Wattenburg
1950;
Ferguson
1952:38;
Nye
1958:35;
8rgyle
1959:100;
Cortes
1965:123;
Rosenq8ist 1
Me8argee
1969;
Rhodes
&
Reiss
1970;
Hrabs,
et
al.
1975145;
Ti7t
1l
6
Welch
1983
506
consistent in indicating that church membership is positively
related to criminality. The one exceptional study also found a
positive relationship, but it was not considered significant by
the author of the report. The eight relevant studies, all conducted
prior to the 1950s, shared a common methodology. They all in-
volved comparing church membership for groups of prisoners
with church membership for populations from which the
prisoners came. This approach has been criticized as failing to
recognize that prisoners, in their desires for parole, may in-
sincerely claim church membership at or soon after the time of
prison admission (Miner, 1931: 430; Smith, 1949: 365; Sutherland
and Cressey, 1966: 249; also see Benson, 1960: 502). Therefore,
in the absence of anonymous membership information from
prisoners, or such information from nonapprehended offenders,
these studies seem best regarded as inconclusive.2
Church attendance. Studies using church attendance frequency
as a measure of religiosity offer a strong and consistent argu-
ment for an inverse religiosity-criminality relationship. As shown
in Table 1, among 31 relevant studies, none found high church
attenders committing more crime than low attenders, and all
but five of these reported a significant negative relationship. Two
additional points are worth noting here. First, the inverse
relationships were reported for both victimful and victimless
crimes, but in those studies where both types of offenses were
separately presented, the strengths of relationships were greater
in the case of victimless crimes. Second, for all five studies that
concluded that essentially no significant church attendance-
criminality relationship existed, the direction of the relationship
was negative, and generally just fell slightly short of significance.
Belief in God. Using belief in a personal god as a measure
of religiosity has produced inconsistent results. The tendency
would appear to be for a belief in a personal god to be negative-
ly associated with victimless crimes. However, for victimful
offenses, the opposite (or at least a no-relationship) conclusion
might be warranted in terms of the current limited evidence.
Belief in an afterlife. Turning to the belief in an afterlife and
divine sanctions, consistent patterns are apparent. All but one
of the five studies reported a negative relationship between this
measure, of religiosity and criminality (for both victimful and
victimless offenses). The exceptional study, in fact, found a
negative relationship, but the authors of the report did not con-
sider the magnitude significant.
Other measures of religiosity. For the last two columns in
Table 1, the results are mixed. They represent a variety of
religiosity measures, and no discernible patterns were detected.
DENOMINATIONAL STUDIES
One more group of studies must be reviewed before offering
a theoretical discussion of the religiosity-criminality research.
These studies have compared crime probabilities by various
religious groups (denominations) rather than in terms of various
measures of religious intensity just reviewed. The denominational
studies are relevant to the religiosity-criminality question in at
least two respects. First, some religions require/expect greater
involvement and/or commitment to a set of orthodox beliefs
by their members (e.g., Catholics, fundamentalist Protestants,
and possibly Jews) than other religions (e.g., most nonfundamen-
talist Protestants). To the degree that religious group solidarity,
belief in divine sanctions, or obedience to authority help to pre-
vent criminal behavior, one could expect crime rates to be lower
among members of the more involved, orthodox religions than
among members of the more "liberal," nonfundamentalist
religions. Second, many of the denominational studies to be
reported included a response category of "none," which per-
mits at least a partial check of the curious finding mentioned
in reference to Table 1, that non-church members seem to have
lower crime rates than church members.
Table 2 summarizes the results of 21 studies relating religious
group (or denominational) affiliation with rates of delinquency
or criminality (four of these studies also appear in Table 1). In
all but one case (Asuni's 1963 study in Nigeria), the studies were
TABLE 2
A Summary of Religious Group Differences in Criminality
Christian
Protestant
, Z . . ., Studies*
Surce
4 ~~~~~~~of Sample
Maller, 1937
-
I --------- 2 New York
Aschaffenburg, 1933:58 1 | | 2 3 Germany
Bonger, 1936:131 1 ------- 2 ------- 4 Netherlands
Hersch, 1936:515 1 ?--- 2 ------- 3 E. Europe
Hersch, 1937 _*----------- -------
2 Poland
Exner, 1939:67 ------?----- 1 --__-
-- 2 Germany
Levinger, 1940 -- -
-------. 1 --------
-----
2 U. S.
Linfield, 1940 1_-----------
I ------------
_2 U. S.
Lunden, 1942:130 4-Z --- 4|
3 Pennsylvania
Kvaraceus, 1944:288 1
------- 2 I _3 New Jersey
Kvaraceus, 1945:102 -------- 1 -------- 2 New Jersey
Hersclh, 1945 ------------- 1 -------------?2 Poland
Gillin, 1946 -= = 4 =
3 Wisconsin
von Hentig, 1948:337 -j ------- 2 ------- = ____ Mass.
Glueck & Glueck, 1950:166 1 ------- 2 ------ 3 U. S.
Goldberg, 1950 --??--------------------
2 Los Angeles
Peck et al., 1955 -------- I ------- -- 2 New York
Robinson, 1958 ------- 1? ? ? I
_-_.-.__-
2 New York
Asuni, 1963:188
-----
1 ---- 2 - Nigeria
Rhodes & Reiss, Whites 3 5 1 6 4 1 2 7 U. S.
1970:83 Blacks 1 4 | 5 3 2 6 = U. S.
Jensen & Erickson, 1979:165 1 ----- 2 3 Arizona
*Three studies reported finding no denominationai differences in delinquency rates:
Allen and Sandhu (1967: 264), Hirschi and Stark (1969), and Burkett and White
(1974). These were not included in the table because no specific figures were pre-
sented to document their conclusions, and their results were at variance with all of
the studies that did present specific figures.
of populations in western Europe and the United States. To
reflect the essential findings in Table 2, the religious groups that
were represented in each of the studies were ranked according
to their relative rate of criminality, "1" indicating the religious
group with the highest crime rate, "2," the second highest, and
so on.
As can be seen, the overall results were quite consistent. First,
rates of criminality among Jews, without exception, have been
found to be lower than any Christian denomination to which
they have been compared. This is true of studies in the United
States and throughout Europe. Obviously, there are many
comparisons that have not yet been made, but, so far, the only
Christian denomination found to have a crime rate approaching
that of Jews were Lutherans (Aschaffenburg, 1933). Among
Christians, Catholics were found to have the highest crime rate
in all 10 studies where their rates were compared to Protestants.
Regarding crime rates for non-Judeo-Christian groups, only
five studies have been reported. Consistent with findings reported
in Table 1, three of these studies found respondents with no
religious affiliation to have lower crime rates than any group
of persons claiming religious affiliation, even Jews. One study
(conducted in Nigeria) reported that "Pagans" (which in that
country presumably included primarily Moslems) had lower crime
rates than Christians. Lastly, the study by Rhodes and Reiss
(1970) analyzed data separately by race and found "nonreligious"
whites reporting higher crime rates than any of the Judeo-
Christian groups, and "nonreligious" blacks had next to the
highest rates (just behind black Catholics). Whites claiming
membership in "other" religions in the Rhodes and Reiss study
had the second highest crime rate; and "other" religious
members (probably mainly Moslems) among blacks had the
lowest crime rates.
Before leaving the review of Table 2, an important qualifica-
tion is in order concerning the Rhodes and Reiss study. The
apparent inconsistencies between their study and all of the others
cited in Table 2 probably can be best explained on methodological
grounds. In particular, their report of high crime rates for per-
sons reporting "no religious affiliation" is very much as odds
with the several other studies indicating that nonaffiliates have
especially low crime rates. Upon examining their methodology,
one finds that, whereas all other studies first asked what religion
their respondents belonged to (usually with "none" as one of
the response options), and then asked the respondents if they
attend church services and how often, Rhodes and Reiss (1970:
90) first asked whether or not respondents attended church. All
who answered they "did not attend church" (no time frame was
apparently stipulated in the question) simply were assumed not
to be members of a religion. This procedure effectively equated
non-church attendance with not being a member of a religion.
As noted in regard to Table 1, there is no real doubt that, at
least among church members, low church attendance is a predic-
tor of crime involvement. In all of the other studies cited in
Table 2, respondents were allowed to claim church membership
regardless of whether or not they attended church services.
DISCUSSION
From the perspective of the present review, the evidence about
the relationships between religiosity and criminality allows one
to draw three generalizations for which there is strong support
and essentially no contradiction:
(1) Among church members, frequent church attenders have lower
crime rates than infrequent (or non-) attenders, especially in
regard to victimless crimes.
(2) Among church members, Jews have lower crime rates than
Christians. Among Christians, Protestants have lower crime
rates than Catholics.
(3) Persons who believe in an afterlife with divine punishment for
sins have somewhat lower crime rates than persons who lack
such beliefs.
The current evidence suggests two other generalizations still
in need of further empirical confirmation:
(1) Persons who do not consider themselves church members (even
though they may occasionally attend services) appear to have
unusually low crime rates, possibly even lower than Jews.
(2) Even though many victimless offenses are not explicitly con-
demned by Judeo-Christian teaching, the association between
frequent church attendance and low rates of criminal behavior
seems to be at least as strong in regard to victimless offenses
as in regard to victimful offenses (virtually all of which are ex-
plicitly condemned by Judeo-Christian teaching).
THE ADEQUACY OF CONVENTIONAL EXPLANATIONS
Which of the four explanations identified in the introduction
best explains these generalizations? Considering each one
separately, the Durkheimian group solidarity explanation would
predict a low crime rate for frequent church attenders and for
Jews (Goldberg, 1950: 290), but it would be hard pressed to
explain why Catholics would have consistently higher crime rates
than Protestant groups, or why the nonreligious would not rank
near the top in crime probabilities (Rhodes and Reiss, 1970: 86).
The group solidarity explanation also would be unable to predict
that a strong belief in an afterlife would have any bearing upon
crime probabilities.
The hell fire explanations, of course, would be tailor-made
to account for why those who believe in an afterlife would com-
mit fewer crimes, but it would not predict the high crime rate
among Catholics or the unusually low rate among Jews. Of the
approximately one-half of adults in western societies who believe
in personal immortality (Gallup, 1976: 18), the believers appear
to be much heavily concentrated among Catholics than among
Protestants and, especially, Jews (Hynson, 1975: 286).
Concerning the obedience-to-authority explanation, it would
predict that belief in God would correlate with low criminality
(which does not appear to be the case, particularly for victimful
offenses). It would predict that frequent church attenders would
be less criminal than infrequent attenders (which many studies
have found). However, the obedience-to-authority explanation
would not lead one to expect Catholics to have higher crime
rates than Protestants or Jews or the non-church affiliates.
Of the four conventional explanations for why religiosity and
criminality should be inversely related, it seems that the strongest
case can be made for a coincidental social class explanation (see
Smith, 1949: 366). Education, income, and occupational levels
have been found repeatedly to be highest for Jews, intermediate
for most Protestant groups, and lowest for Catholics (Jackson
et al., 1970: Rhodes and Nam, 1970: 254; Featherman, 1971;
Gallup, 1977: 95). Regarding church attendance, inasmuch as
it is somewhat higher among the upper than the lower social
strata (Broom and Jones, 1970: 999; Mueller and Johnson, 1975),
an inverse relationship between crime probabilities and church
attendance also would be anticipated. The only finding that the
coincidental social class explanation would be poorly equipped
to predict would be the lower crime rate among those believing
in life after death, because this belief appears to be stronger
in the lower social classes than in the upper classes.3
Finally, although evidence clearly indicates that religiosity and
criminality are empirically related, no simple answer can be given
to the question, do "religious people" commit fewer crimes?
Overall, if one means by "religious" people who hold very
orthodox religious beliefs, with the exception of a belief in im-
mortality, there appears to be little or no association. If one
means by "religious" being a member of an organized religious
body, the answer markedly depends upon which religious body
one is considering. And if, by "religious," one means attending
church services frequently, there is manifestly a strong tendency
for religious people to commit fewer crimes.
NOTES
1. In a just published article, Peek et al. (1985) again confirmed the most general
conclusion of the present review: Religiosity and delinquency/criminality are related
phenomena. Their study was based upon panel survey data in which religiosity was
measured at two points in time (1966 and 1968) and delinquency was measured once
(in 1969). Using a religious salience (i.e., importance of religion to your daily life)
plus church attendance measure of religiosity (p. 122), they found that religiosity was
inversely related to most forms of delinquency, and that the correlations were generally
stronger for religiosity measured in the second time frame than in the first time frame.
They conclude that religion deters delinquent conduct, but with decreasing impact
as the time span between religious exposure and delinquency increases. They did not
consider the possibility, however, that some third variable-such as neurological
arousal-could at least partially account for their findings. If arousal theory were used
to explain their overall findings, one would first stipulate that arousal tendencies, while
genetically and neurohormonally influenced, are not entirely stable within individuals
over time (especially during adolescence when many neurohormonal changes are taking
place). This being the case, arousal theory would predict that, as the time span be-
tween the measurement of religiosity and the measurement of delinquent/criminal
behavior increases, the association between these two arousal-influenced behavior pat-
terns would become somewhat weaker.
2. In a study of the parole process in Oregon, Moule and Hanft (1976) found
no evidence that parole boards discriminated favorably toward members of organized
religion. In fact, the average proportion of sentenced time served by prisoners who
claimed church membership was somewhat greater than for those claiming no church
membership.
3. In a recent conference paper ("Religiosity and Criminality from the Perspec-
tive of Arousal Theory," American Society of Criminology Convention, Cincinnati,
November 11, 1984), I proposed that arousal theory may constitute a viable fifth ex-
planation of the essential relationships between religiosity and criminality established
in this Teview.
REFERENCES
Albrecht, S. L., B. A. Chadwick, and D. S. Alcorn
1977 "Religiosity and deviance: application of an attitude-behavior contingent
consistency model." J. for the Scientific Study of Religion 16: 263-274.
Allen, D. E. and H. S. Sandhu
1967 "A comparative study of delinquents and non-delinquents: family affect,
religion, and personal income." Social Forces 46: 263-269.
Argyle, M.
1959 Religious Behavior. New York: Free Press.
Arnold, W. R. and T. M. Brungardt
1983 Juvenile Misconduct and Delinquency. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Aschaffenburg, G.
1933 Das Verbrechen und seine Bekampfung. Heidelberg: Carl Wingers Uni-
versitatstiuchhandlung.
Asuni, T.
1963 "Preliminary study of juvenile delinquency in western Nigeria," pp. 186-194
in the Proceedings of the 12th International Course in Criminology,
Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Institute of Criminology.
Banks, C., E. Maloney, and H. Wittrock
1975 "Public attitudes toward crime and the penal system." British J. of
Criminology 15: 228-240.
Barnes, H. E. and N. K. Teeters
1951 New Horizons in Criminology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Benson, P. H.
1960 Religion in Contemporary Culture. New York: Harper & Row.
Blatt, G.
1967 "An additional view," in The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Report
by the U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administra-
tion of Justice. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Block, H. A. and F. T. Flynn
1956 Delinquency. New York: Random House.
Bonger, W. A.
1936 An Introduction to Criminology. London: Methuen.
1969 Criminality and Economic Conditions. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.
(pub. orig. in 1916)
Breuer, G.
1982 Sociobiology and the Human Dimension. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Broom, L. and F. L. Jones
1970 "Status consistency and political preferences: the Australian case." Amer.
Soc. Rev. 35: 989-1001.
Ellis
/ RELIGIOSITY AND CRIMINALITY 515
Broom, L. and P. Selznick
1963 Sociology: A Text with Adapted Readings. New York: Harper & Row.
Burkett, S. R. and W. White
1974 "Hellfire and delinquency: another look." J. for the Scientific Study of
Religion 13: 455-462.
Carr-Saunders, A. M., H. Mannheim, and E. C. Rhodes
1944 Young Offenders. New York: Macmillan.
Coogan, J. E.
1945 "Religion and the criminologist." Amer. Catholic Soc. Rev. 6: 154-159.
1952 "The myth mind in an engineer's world." Federal Probation 16 (March): 26.
1954 "Religion, a preventive of delinquency." Federal Probation 18 (December):
25-29.
Cooley, E. J.
1927 Probation and Delinquency. New York: Thomas Nelson.
Cortes, J. B.
1965 "Juvenile delinquency: a biosocial approach," pp. 114-155 in A. D' Agostino
(ed.) Family, Church and Community. New York: P. J. Kennedy.
Costello, J. B.
1951 "Institutions for juvenile delinquents," pp. 353-359 in Contemporary Cor-
rection. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Davis, K.
1948 Human Society. New York: Macmillan.
Davis, K. and W. E. Moore
1945 "Some principles of stratification." Amer. Soc. Rev. 10.
Dentler, R. A. and L. J. Monroe
1961 "Social correlates of early adolescent theft." Amer. Soc. Rev. 26: 733-743.
Donovan, J. E.
1977 "A typological study of self-reported deviance in a national sample of
adolescents." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado. (see Dissertation
Abstracts, 1977, 38, p.24426-B[05]).
Durkheim, E.
1915 The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. London: Allen and Unwin.
1961 Moral Education. New York: Free Press.
Educational Policies Commission
1951 Moral and Spiritual Values in the Public Schools. Washington, DC: National
Education Association.
Elifson, K. W., D. M. Petersen, and C. K. Hadaway
1983 "Religiosity and delinquency." Criminology 21: 505-527.
Elliott, M. A.
1952 Crime in Modern Society. New York: Harper & Row.
Ellis, H.
1910 The Criminal. New York: Walter Scott.
Erikson, K. T.
1966 Wayword Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Wiley.
Exner, F.
1939 Kriminalbiologie In lhren Grundzugen. Hamburg; Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt.
Falk, G. J.
1961 "Religion, personal integration and criminality." J. of Education and Sociology
35: 159-161.
Featherman, D. L.
1971 "The socioeconomic achievement of white religio-ethnic subgroups: social
and psychological explanations." Amer. Soc. Rev. 36: 207-222.
Ferguson, T.
1952 The Young Delinquent in His Social Setting. London: Oxford Univ. Press.
Fitzpatrick, P.
1967 "The role of religion in programs for the prevention and correction of crime
and delinquency." President's Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Juvenile Delinquency and Young
Crime. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Gallup, G.
1976 "Religion in America." Gallup Opinion Index (May): 130.
1977 "Religion in America." Gallup Opinion Index (August): 145.
Gannon, T. M.
1970 "Religious control and delinquent behavior," pp. 499-508 in M. E. Wolfgang
et al. (eds.) The Sociology of Crime and Delinquency. New York: Wiley.
Gillin, J. L.
1946 The Wisconsin Prisoner. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press.
Glueck, S. and E. Glueck
1950 Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. Cambridge: MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
1968 Delinquents and Non-Delinquents in Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ. Press.
1974 Of Delinquency and Crime. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Goldberg, N.
1950 "Jews in the police records of Los Angeles, 1933-1947." Yivo Annual of
Jewish Social Sci. 5: 266-291.
Hager, D. J.
1957 Religion, delinquency and society. Social Work 2: 16-21.
Hassett, J.
1981 "But that would be wrong." Psychology Today 15 (November): 34-50.
Haviland, W. A.
1983 Cultural Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rienhart & Winston.
Healy, W. and A. F. Bronner
1936 New Light on Delinquency and Its Treatment. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ.
Press.
Hersch, L.
1936 "Delinquency among Jews." J. of Criminal Law and Criminology 27: 515-516.
1937 "Complementary data on Jewish delinquency in Poland." J. of Criminal
Law and Criminology 27: 857-873.
1945 "Jewish and non-Jewish criminality in Poland." Yivo Annals of Jewish Social
Sci. 1: 178-182.
Higgins, P. C. and G. L. Albrecht
1977 "Hellfire and delinquency revisited." Social Forces 55: 952-958.
Hirschi, T. and R. Stark
1969 "Hellfire and delinquency." Social Problems 17: 202-213.
Hoover, J. E.
1968 "The faith of free men," pp. 6-12 in R. D. Knudten (ed.) Criminological
Controversies. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Hoult, T. F.
1958 The Sociology of Religion. New York: Dryden.
Hraba, J., M. G. Miller, and V. J. Webb
1975 "Mutability and delinquency: the relative effects of structural, associational,
and attitudinal variables on juvenile delinquency." Criminal Justice and
Behavior 2: 408-415.
Hronke, M.
1955 "An experiment in penetrating the spiritual milieu of the juvenile delinquent."
Religious Education 50: 98-100.
Hurwitz, S. and K. 0. Christiansen
1983 Criminology. London: Fairleigh Dickinson Univ. Press.
Hynson, L. M., Jr.
1975 "Review of the polls: religion, attendance and belief in an afterlife." J. for
the Scientific Study of Religion 14: 285-287.
Jackson, E. F., W. S. Fox, and H. J. Crockett, Jr.
1970 "Religion and occupational achievement." Amer. Soc. Rev. 35: 48-63.
Jaffe, A. J. and S. D. Alinsky
1939 "A comparison of Jewish and non-Jewish convicts." Jewish Social Studies
1: 359-366.
Jensen, G.
1981 Sociology of Delinquency: Current Issues. London: Sage.
Jensen, G. F. and M. L. Erickson
1979 "The religious factor and delinquency: another look at the hellfire hypothesis,"
pp. 157-177 in R. Wiethnow (ed.) The Religious Dimension. New York:
Academic.
Kalmer, L. and E. Wier
1936 Crime and Religion. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press.
Kvaraceus, W. C.
1944 "Delinquent behavior and church attendance." Sociology and Social Research
28: 284-289.
1945 Juvenile Delinquency and the School. New York: World Book.
Lee, R.
1957 "The church and the problem of delinquency." Religious Education 52:
125-129.
Levinger, L. J.
1940 "A note on Jewish prisoners in Ohio." Jewish Social Studies 2: 209-212.
Linfield, H. S.
1940 "Jewish inmates of the state prisons of the United States." Amer. Jewish
Yearbook 33: 203-211.
Lombroso, C.
1918 Crime: Its Causes and Remedies. Boston: Little, Brown.
Lunden, W. A.
1942 Statistics on Crime and Criminals. New York: Stevenson & Foster.
1964 Statistics on Delinquents and Delinquency. Springfield: IL: Charles C Thomas.
Lyerly, R. R. and J. K. Skipper, Jr.
1981 "Differential rates of rural-urban delinquency." Criminology 19: 385-399.
MacDonald, C. B. and J. B. Luckett
1983 "Religious affiliation and psychiatric diagnoses." J. for the Scientific Study
of Religion 22: 15-37.
Maller, J.
1937 "The maladjusted Jewish child." Jewish Social Sci. Q. 9: 285-295.
Martin, J. M. and J. P. Fitzpatrick
1964 Delinquent Behavior. New York: Random House.
Middleton, R. and S. Putney
1962 "Religion, normative standards, and behavior." Sociometry 25: 141-152.
Middleton, W. C. and P. J. Fay
1941 "Attitudes of delinquent and non-delinquent girls toward Sunday observances,
the Bible, and War." J. of Educ. Psychology 32: 555-558.
Middleton, W. C. and R. R. Wright
1941 "A comparison of a group of ninth and tenth grade delinquent and non-
delinquent boys and girls on certain attitude scales." J. of Genetic Psychology
58: 139-150.
Miner, J. R.
1931 "Church membership and commitment to prisons." Human Biology 3:
429-436.
Misra, V. D.
1983 "Some personality characteristics of juvenile delinquents." Social Defence
18: 32-36.
Moule, D. M. and J. K. Hanft, Jr.
1976 "Parole decision-making in Oregon." Oregon Law Rev. 55: 303-347.
Mueller, C. W. and W. T. Johnson
1975 "Socioeconomic status and religious participation." Amer. Soc. Rev. 40:
785-800.
Murchison, C.
1924 "American white criminal intelligence." J. of Criminal Law, Criminology,
and Police Sci. 15: 238-316.
Mursell, G. R.
1930 "A study of religious training as a psychological factor in delinquency." Disser-
tation, Ohio State University.
Nagel, W. H.
1960 "Criminality and religion." Tidschrift voor Strafrecht 69: 263-291.
Neumeyer, M. H.
1961 Juvenile Delinquency in Modern Society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Nye, F. I.
1958 Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior. New York: Wiley.
O'Dea, T. F.
1966 The Sociology of Religion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Parmalee, M.
1918 Criminology. New York: Macmillan.
Peck, H. B., M. Harrower, C. Hariri, M. B. Beck, J. B. Maryjohn, and M. Roman
1955 "A new pattern for mental health services in a children's court: round table
1954." Amer. J. of Orthopsychiatry 25: 1-50.
Peek, C. W., E. W. Curry, and H. P. Chalfant
1985 "Religiosity and delinquency over time: deviance deterrence and deviance
amplification." Social Sci. Q. 65: 120-131.
Powers, G. E.
1967 "Prevention through religion," pp. 99-127 in W. E. Amos and C. F. Wellford
(eds.) Delinquency Prevention. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice.
1967 Task Force Report: Corrections. Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office.
Reckless, W. C. and N. Smith
1932 Juvenile Delinquency. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Repole, C.
1977 "Chaplain admits humane prison progress, but emphasis 'God left out of
prison system.' " Amer. J. of Correction 30: 10.
Rhodes, A. L. and C. B. Nam
1970 "The religious context of educational expectations." Amer. Soc. Rev. 35:
253-267.
Rhodes, A. and A. Reiss Jr.
1970 "The 'religious factor' and delinquent behavior." J. of Research in Crime
and Delinquency 7: 83-98.
Robinson, S. M.
1958 "A study of delinquency among Jewish children in New York City," pp.
535-542 in M. Sklare (ed.) The Jews: Social Patterns of an American Group.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
1960 Juvenile Delinquency. New York: Holt.
Rohrbaugh, J. and R. Jessor
1975 "Religiosity in youth: a personal control against deviant behavior." J. of
Personality 43: 136-155.
Rosenquist, C. M. and E. I. Megaree
1969 Delinquency in Three Cultures. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press.
Rowe, D. C. and D. W. Osgood
1984 "Heredity and sociological theories of delinquency: a reconsideration." Amer.
Soc. Rev. 49: 526-540.
Schlapp, M. and E. H. Smith
1928 The New Criminology. New York: Boni and Liveright.
Schur, E. M.
1969 Our Criminal Society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sheldon, W. H. with E. M. Hartl and E. McDermott
1949 Varieties of Delinquent Youth: An Introduction to Constitutional Psychology.
New York: Harper.
Singh, A.
1979 "Religious involvement and anti-social behavior." Perceptual and Motor Skills
48: 1157-1158.
Smith, P. M.
1949 "Organized religion and criminal behavior." Sociology and Social Research
33: 362-367.
Stack, S. and M. J. Kanavy
1983 "The effect of religion on forcible rape: a structural analysis." J. for the
Scientific Study of Religion 22: 67-74.
Stark, R., D. P. Doyle, and L. Kent
1980 "Rediscovering moral communities: church membership and crime," pp. 43-52
in T. Hirschi and M. Gottfredson (eds.) Understanding Crime. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Steiner, F.
1924 Religion and Roguery. New York: The Truth Seekers.
Sutherland, E. H. and D. Cressey
1966 Principles of Criminology. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
1974 Principles of Criminology. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Taft, D. R. and R. W. England
1964 Criminology. New York: Macmillan.
Tappan, P. H.
1949 Juvenile Delinquency. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Teeters, N. K. and J. 0. Reinemann
1950 The Challenge of Delinquency. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Tittle, C. R. and M. R. Welch
1983 "Religiosity and deviance: toward a contingency theory of constraining ef-
fects." Social Forces 61: 653-682.
Travers, J. F. and R. G. Davis
1961 "A study of religious motivation and delinquency." J. of Educ. Sociology
34: 205-220.
Van Dusen, K. T., S. A. Mednick, W. F. Gabrielli, Jr., and B. Hutchings
1983 "Social class and crime in an adoption cohort." J. of Criminal Law and
Criminology 74: 249-254.
von Hentig, H.
1948 The Criminal and His Victim. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
Wattenberg, W. W.
1950 "Church attendance and juvenile misconduct." Sociology and Social Research
34: 195-202.
Webb, R. and M. Webb
1957 "How churches can help in the prevention and treatment of juvenile delin-
quency." Federal Probation 21: 22-24.
Wilson, G. D. and A. MacLean
1974 "Personality, attitudes and humor preferences of prisoners and controls. Psych.
Reports 34: 847-854.
Lee Ellis is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology
at Minot State College. Forthcoming publications include "Evolution and the
Nonlegal
Equivalent
of Aggressive Criminal Behavior, "Aggressive Behavior, and
"Neuroandrogenic Etiology of Human 'Sex Role' Behavior: Evidence Based Upon
Studies of Humans, Nonhuman Primates and Nonprimate Mammals, " Personality
and Individual Differences.

Religiosity and Criminality PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Religiosity and Criminality PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Pacific Sociological Association

Religiosity and Criminality: Evidence and Explanations of Complex Relationships

Anda mungkin juga menyukai