Challenging conventional thinking on crime
Troubling Criminology
by Michael C. K. Ma and Mike Larsen
Toronto: Between the Lines, 2025
$34.95 / 9781771136853
Reviewed by Richard Fyfe
*
What is criminology? Have you wondered what the big criminology issues are today? Criminology professors Michael C. K. Ma and Mike Larsen have collaborated to answer these, and other important questions in their new book Troubling Criminology.
Rather than a conventional monologue, Ma and Larsen engage in an extended dialogue to discuss the foundational elements of, and current issues engaging, criminology. The result is a useful grounding for first year criminology students or anyone else interested in gaining a quick overview of the key aspects of criminology.
However, the book is much more than a primer on criminology. Although the title seems to suggest that criminology itself is troubling, it is actually the authors’ way of indicating that they intend to challenge conventional thinking throughout the book. As the discussion heats up, one begins to feel like a dinner party guest privileged to listen in on a fascinating and wide-ranging conversation between two expert criminologists.
The authors begin their discussion with the importance of “context” to criminologists – describing “the social and historical context in which matters of deviance, crime, justice and injustice are thought about and acted upon.” They then canvass some foundational themes, such as how right and wrong are determined by a society, what is meant by norms and deviance, what is the nature of “harm,” and how “fear of harm” and the selective approach by media when covering crime matters can shape public opinion about what is a crime, how much serious crime is occurring in society, and what constitutes appropriate punishment.
After establishing a firm grounding in the foundational concepts of criminology, the discussion turns to “causation” and the social and environmental factors that may contribute to an individual’s potential to commit a crime. The nature and role of consent is discussed, both in global terms – whereby everyone in a society is taken to notionally consent to an “implied social contract,” and individually – as between two consenting adults. In respect of the implied social contract, Ma conceptually challenges whether “consent – in its purest form is ever really given in the context of the criminal justice system as it currently exists. No one who is ‘trapped’ in a system ever wants to be there and most feel wrongly done by the system. They hate the system. They do not consent to the way things are.”
At this stage in their book the authors begin to touch on their underlying objective, the key of which Larsen explains “…is to question taken-for-granted concepts, practices, and axioms.” “How the prevailing practices of criminology can be radically changed is the real question,” Ma responds. Probing further into the deeper causes of criminal behaviour, Ma observes that as a criminologist, “…it is our job to understand that society is flawed, or that society and its social structures can be improved and changed, rather than to focus on fixing behaviour or behaviours that deviate from norms.”
Ma and Larsen spend a chapter discussing the shortcomings of data collection in relation to criminal matters. In doing so they recognize both the biases within data collection (“the issue of the collection, or lack thereof, of race-based data around criminal justice processes”), and the lack of consistency in relation to the data collected both internally (“… police might use resources to investigate and document bicycle theft one year but not the next.”) and across jurisdictions (“Does Canada have more hate crime than, say, Japan? It is unclear because Japan does not have the same hate crime (or hate speech) framework as Canada.”).
Turning next to the “justice system” itself, the authors examine the role of police, the courts and the prison system. They challenge the “superhuman powers no one else possesses in society” which allow the police to “act in ways that are outside systems of control like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” In relation to courts, they ask whether an independent decision maker is the best approach to resolving disputes between individuals (“What do we make of the fact that we have this third party who is not only detached from the case but also purposefully meant to be positioned as neutral and disinterested?”). Discussing prisons, they characterize them as “designed to punish, and they punish prisoners by using force and fear,” noting that “… many people emerge from prison deeply harmed and dislocated from a society they are expected to return to.”
In the latter chapters the authors engage with more controversial topics including racism, poverty, and the effect of social conditions. As they work through these topics, the authors succeed in “troubling” a number of topics along the way, sometimes controversially, but always compelling the reader to evaluate their own position on the topic under discussion. At one point, for example, they characterize conflicts as “property” and the criminal prosecution process as an “appropriation of conflict” that “truly does steal the case away from the parties involved.”
In the latter chapters the authors engage with more controversial topics including racism, poverty, and the effect of social conditions. As they work through these topics, the authors succeed in “troubling” a number of topics along the way, sometimes controversially, but always compelling the reader to evaluate their own position on the topic under discussion. At one point, for example, they characterize conflicts as “property” and the criminal prosecution process as an “appropriation of conflict” that “truly does steal the case away from the parties involved.”
One strength of the conversational format is the engaging manner in which the various topics are discussed, and the opportunity to hear separate points of view. Having said that, however, the authors tend to agree more frequently than disagree, possibly because they share views on topics such as colonialism, racism, and defunding the police.
It would be surprising to find any disagreement with the authors’ view that much more needs to be done to address social problems, and the underlying social matters which contribute to a tendency towards “deviant” behaviour. What is needed now however, is a clear path as to how society can transition, reducing police or state involvement without compromising public safety.
This book in particular, written in such an accessible format, will inevitably make a valuable contribution in the criminology field. Unlike more conventional texts, “Troubling Criminology” draws us in, with insightful discussion questions at the end of each chapter inviting the reader to consider their own opinion and perhaps consider modifying it based on the discussion between Ma and Larsen. While one may find agreement with much of their dialogue, the reader may occasionally discover that they hold a very different view from the authors. This may occur, for example, when the authors choose to move away from an objective discussion and express their personal views. But of course, that is their purpose with this book. By taking a controversial position on issues Ma and Larsen succeed in forcing each of us to examine our own position or views.
The final chapter, while still in conversational form, takes the reader back through the many topics within the book and doing so in such a way that the reader comes away feeling that they have a much better appreciation for both the concepts of criminology and some of the more important and sometimes controversial issues occupying a criminologist’s time and attention today. As Ma summarizes,
We have discussed how society and the criminal justice system understand and react to the mechanisms or the acts causing crime and we have pointed out their shortcomings. … In future projects … the question criminologists, and all of us, need to grapple with is: What is to be done?
*
Richard Fyfe is a semi-retired lawyer and former Deputy Attorney General for British Columbia. As a retirement project, he is currently in the process of completing a Master of Laws (LLM) degree at the University of Victoria, with a focus on prison law. [Editor’s Note: Richard Fyfe previously reviewed the work of Dany Lacombe with Mac McKinney for The British Columbia Review.]
*
The British Columbia Review
Interim Editors, 2023-26: Trevor Marc Hughes (non-fiction), Brett Josef Grubisic (fiction)
Publisher: Richard Mackie
Formerly The Ormsby Review, The British Columbia Review is an on-line book review and journal service for BC writers and readers. The Advisory Board now consists of Jean Barman, Wade Davis, Robin Fisher, Barry Gough, Hugh Johnston, Kathy Mezei, Patricia Roy, and Graeme Wynn. Provincial Government Patron (since September 2018): Creative BC. Honorary Patron: Yosef Wosk. Scholarly Patron: SFU Graduate Liberal Studies. The British Columbia Review was founded in 2016 by Richard Mackie and Alan Twigg.
“Only connect.” – E.M. Forster