Quick question about limits of criminology

[gradpitt]

Hi all

Just a quick question about the boundaries of criminology, I don't actually have any training in the subject so I'm a bit lost at sea on this. I'm currently reading an article by Ruth Blakeley called "The Elephant in the Room: A Response to John Horgan and Michael J. Boyle" concerning the emergence of the relatively new sub-field of "Critical Terrorism Studies" within the broader field of terrorism studies. On page 156, she says that there has been a lack of engagement with the question of the use of state terrorism by liberal democratic states (such as the U.S., U.K. and France), as opposed to non-state actors such as al-qaeda, within criminology. This, she says, is because the state defines what is criminal, and therefore the parameters of study for criminologists.

Is it really as black-and-white as this? Does criminology only address what is on the statute book so to speak? It seems a bit incredible, especially for a subject borne out of sociology. I know a little bit about critical criminology but as far as I can make out, it seems more concerned about challenging pre-existing ideas about motives and crime causation.

Is the issue of what is within the purview of criminology something that has been debated much?

Thanks

Edited June 26, 2011 by gradpitt