Nicole Hahn Rafter

Nicole Hahn Rafter (1939-2016) (English pronunciation: ni-kohl h-ah-n raf-ter) was a feminist criminology professor at Northeastern University.^[1] She received her Bachelor of Arts from Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania.^[2] She then went to achieve her Masters in Teachers from Harvard University, and finally got her Ph.D. in Criminal Justice from State University of New York in Albany.^[1] She began her career as a high school and college English professor and switched to criminal justice in her mid-thirties.

In 1977 Rafter began teaching at Northeastern University’s College of Criminal Justice in Boston, Massachusetts.^[2] Here she developed one of the country’s first courses on women and crime as well as a course on crime films.^[2] In 1999 she resigned her position as a full-time professor to focus on her writing projects. She continued affiliation with Northeastern University as an adjunct professor and overseeing dissertation students but not teaching regular courses.^[2] In 2002 she resumed teaching at the College of Criminal Justice with a graduate course in Biological Theories of Crime.^[2]

During the 1980s is when the first wave of her writings began to be published. Rafter, having written Gender, Prisons, and Prison History in 1985, was interested in re-writing the scarce literature that was present at the time on the female prison system. Here she argues that there have always been differences between the prison systems for the sexes and littler academia has focused on women since studies were done on male institutions by male writers. Here she dives into the history of prisons for women, accounting for their differences for that of men as well as commenting on the effects that gender has on an institution and vice versa.^[2]

Towards the end of the 1980s, Rafter published White Trash: the Eugenic Family Studies 1877-1919 in which she writes on the eugenic movement in England and the way in which the poor were reshaped as being inferior through heredity.^[2] Rafter diverts from her original theme of prisons for women and studies the gender-neutral account of eugenics and the biological scapegoats created there within. At the beginning of the 1990s Rafter accounted for gender in the eugenic movement in the United States showing how women were negatively affected with biological notions of being carriers of disease through reproduction.^[2]

Intellectual history

Achieving her PhD in Criminal Justice from State University of New York, Albany sparked her academia career in feminist criminology. Nicole Rafter began writing on delinquent individuals from the time of her very first publication in 1969. During the 1980s is when the first wave of her writings began to be published. Rafter, having written "Gender, Prisons, and Prison History" in 1985, was interested in re-writing the scarce literature that was present at the time on the female prison system. Here she argues that there have always been differences between the prison systems for the sexes and littler academia has focused on women since studies were done on male institutions by male writers.^[3] Here she dives into the history of prisons for women accounting for their differences for that of men as well as commenting on the effects that gender has on an institution and vice versa.

Towards the end of the 1980s Rafter published White Trash: the Eugenic Family Studies 1877-1919 in which she writes on the eugenic movement in England and the way in which the poor were reshaped as being inferior through heredity.^[4] Rafter diverts from her original theme of prisons for women and studies the gender-neutral account of eugenics and the biological scapegoats created there within. At the beginning of the 1990s Rafter accounted for gender in the eugenic movement in the United States showing how women were negatively affected with biological notions of being carriers of disease through reproduction.^[5] Here we see her interest in feminism related to aspects of criminology flourish with narrowing the themes in her writings to argue for feminist cause. All of her publications and research led her to create a course at Northeastern University entitled Gender, Representation, and Social Control in 1997. Here she is able to teach criminology students of her thorough knowledge of the workings of specific prison institutions and the reciprocal influence shared between them and gender. With this course Nicole Rafter also begins a theme in her writings and research on crime films and their representation in mass media and culture, which has remained a constant climaxing with her publication of Shots in the Mirror: Crime Films and Society in 2006.

A second major theme in Rafter’s intellectual history is her writings on biological theories of crime. She writes on the historical importance of Earnest Hooton’s theories on biological explanations of crime in her Earnest A. Hooton and the Biological Tradition in American Criminology and claims that he helped build a history for criminology. The most recent ten years of Nicole Rafter’s publications have seen two trends, which are biological theories of crime with and introduction being published for Cesare Lombroso’s Criminal Women in 2004 and her research and writings on crime films and their influence in popular culture.^[2]

In the first decade of the 21st century Rafter published three works relating to crime films and criminology including Badfellas: Movie Psychos, Popular Culture, and Law, Shots in the Mirror: Crime Films and Society, and Crime, Film, and Criminology: Recent Sex Crime Movies.^[2] She finished off the decade in 2008 by having her most recent book published which is The Criminal Brain: Understanding Biological Theories of Crime. She has also kept her interest in eugenics while attending to her feminist nature through writing Gender, Genes and Crimes: an Evolving Feminist Agenda in 2006.

Major works

Article response

Nicole Hahn Rafter writes the article that will be reviewed and it is entitled "Crime, film and criminology: recent sex-crime movies", published in the journal Theoretical Criminology. This article is fairly recent being published in 2007, and is related to one of Rafter’s most notable accomplishments which is the fact that she started one of the United States first university courses on crime and film at Northeastern University where she is still a faculty member today.

Rafter suggests a term for the conceptual grouping of criminological media that she refers to as ‘popular criminology’.^[6] In this article she specifically analyzes crime films, yet attaches the term popular criminology to crime realities being shaped by but not limited to media outlets such as television, the Internet, newspapers, novels, rap music, and myth that shape and determine our cultural understandings.^[6] Rafter’s (2007) central thesis of this journal article is that "crime films should be conceptualized as an aspect of popular criminology, and popular criminology as an aspect of criminology itself."^[6] For this to be accomplished popular criminology must be recognized as a criminological discourse in its own right, and research must be done to validate crime films’ relationship to academic criminology showing that the creation of culture is not restricted to one category or the other.^[6]

Resulting in her increased push for research on the topic of crime films is her awareness of a growing knowledge that film contributes to society’s understandings of crime and the criminological nature including individual theoretical crime subjects such as the police and deviant.^[6] Rafter (2007) substantiates the claim of crime films making an influential contribution to cultural crime notions by ‘a steady accumulation of studies analyzing crime films.”^[6] Rafter also uses the film L.I.E. stating that it uses recent understandings of sexual victimization, accumulating society’s knowledge on the topic through incorporating dominant theologies on the subject. Therefore Rafter is claiming that popular criminology and criminology itself should be of equal social significance.^[6] This claim is empirical in that Rafter observed and analyzed six crime films and came to this conclusion. This claim is also conceptual because she is linking he term of popular criminology to the traditional discourse of academic criminology in that they are parallel in importance. Her evidence of observation of six recent sex crime films is linked to her academic intelligence and expert opinion on the subject of crime films. This claim and evidence does support Rafter’s original thesis statement.

Rafter claims that “movies constitute an aspect of criminology, a popular discourse that needs to be recognized and analyzed if criminology – the study of crime and criminals – itself is to be fully understood."^[6] She attributes this claim to the secondary claim that within legal studies law films are now being considered a significant source of insight into the attitudes toward law and of physically being a citizen of the law itself.^[6] The evidence given to substantiate this claim is that law films are the foremost way in which society comes to form understandings about the law, and therefore in order for law to be understood, law movies must be analyzed as well.^[6] Therefore this evidence and claim are empirical because she has researched that crime films have an impact on forming cultural notions of crime, yet they can also be conceptual in that social sciences would be interested in being able to measure the amount that crime films actually influence or mold society’s notions of the criminological figure. This claim and evidence does support rafter’s original thesis statement.

Rafter states that it was not until the 1980s that a surge of films about crime and sex began to appear, she attributes this change to the media for “publicizing false memories, recovered memories, accusations against religious and scouting leaders, sex offender registries,” and in general the topic of danger and risk being popular among media outlets.^[6] An example Rafter uses is the use of the “ordinary guy image of the sex criminal to emphasize children’s vulnerability and the difficulty of perceiving such offences when they occur."^[6] This claim and evidence is empirical in that she researched and observed these events which enables the suggestion of popular criminology and criminology to be parallel discourses. The claim that increased media spotlight on the topic of crime and risk resulted in a greater audience for crime films relates to her thesis in that if popular criminology is as prevalent to understanding notions of crime as the academic discourse of criminology, then they should be two halves of one whole.

Rafter’s main thesis statement is the claim that what she defines as popular criminology and academic criminology should be meshed together forming an “egalitarian epistemology in which the two ways of knowing are conceived as partners in the task of defining and explaining crime."^[6] She accounts for the difference in discourses, knowing that popular criminology will have a far larger audience that academic criminology cannot reach, yet she substantiates her claim by stating that the lines between these discourses are “already blurring, for the cultural criminology movement has for a decade been eroding their conceptual boundaries, demonstrating that they interpenetrate."^[6] This claim directly relates to Rafter’s thesis statement and is substantiated by her empirical analysis of six recent crime films.

Therefore in Nicole Hahn Rafter’s article, "Crime, film and criminology: Recent sex-crime movies", she argues for the merge and equal acceptance of popular criminology and academic criminology framing, molding, and altering society’ cultural notions of topics central to criminology. Analyzing six recent sex-crime films and attaching her expert conclusions to substantiate her claims, she makes a good case as to why popular criminology and academic criminology should be known as co-providers of cultural notions of criminology.

Book summary

Nicole Hahn Rafter in The Criminal Brain: Understanding Biological Theories of Crime traces and accounts for historical trends in thought surrounding criminology and biology in the 19th and 20th century.^[3] She wishes to spark and add to the debate of the roles society should want biocriminology to have in the future by showing the potential blemishes that it has seen in the past.^[3] Biocriminology is the thought that criminality can be scientifically detected through biology such as body type, brain size, facial features, and subject to heredity. Rafter identifies the schools of thought surrounding moral insanity, the abnormal brain, criminal anthropology, and evolutionary theories that dominated the 19th century mostly influenced by Cesare Lombroso.^[3] She then goes into detail on eugenics and body type criminology using Earnest Hooton and to a lesser extent William Sheldon to outline biological theories of crime within the 20th century.^[3] Finally in Nicole Rafter’s last chapter she discusses the future she sees for biological theories of crime in the 21st century.

Part 1 of The Criminal Brain begins by identifying the origins of criminology and the stream of thought labeling criminals as morally insane. Rafter states that sociologists Rush, Pinel, and Prichard all began researching and documenting their ideas about criminals being morally insane around the same time period internationally.^[3] The shift towards theories of criminology occurs within 18th-century rationalist thought because every human was believed to have the ability to rationalize their actions, therefore when someone committed a crime they must be insane and therefore unable to analyze their behaviour and the short term positive yet long term negative impacts that will occur.^[3] Here then is when Rafter accounts for the development of phrenology within criminology stating that with scientific inquiry on the rise along with the democratic notion that all individuals are aware of their choices, criminals can be accounted for through differing aspects of their brain.^[3]

Phrenology was closely related to the moral insanity though process in that it was still believed that criminality could be scientifically studied and detected. The difference between moral insanity and phrenology is that with the latter it was thought that by physically studying aspects on the outside of the skull you could gain influential information regarding portions of the brain that were thought to have criminal impulses. Nicole Rafter now accounts for Cesare Lombroso’s influence within the history of criminology without discrediting his work, she attributes his beliefs regarding the anthropology of criminals for driving forward scientific explanations of crime through biology.^[3] Among other historically important novels, Rafter introduces Lombroso’s The Criminal Man as one example of his research and writings on the atavistic brain; his main cause of criminality. Lombroso’s writings reflected the evolutionary theories, which Rafter discusses next in that both believe that there is an inferior and superior man.^[3] Stemming out of Darwinism, natural and social evolution also had large impacts on society’s understandings of crime and the criminal in the 19th century. The thought that on some level a criminal could be biologically detected from a normal citizen was an empowering thought at the time with clear racist and sexist overtones. Nicole Rafter discusses developments of criminology and biocriminology in the 19th century in part 1 of The Criminal Brain: Understanding Biological Theories of Crime.

Chapter Six entitled Stupidity Theories: The Backward Brain begins part two of Rafter’s historical account of biological theories now focusing on the 20th century. Naturally stemming from the scientific thought that criminality could be detected scientifically came the eugenics movement which argued that certain individuals should reproduce more than other inferior individuals to create a society full of the most desirable genetic characteristics.^[3] Rafter illustrates how stupidity theories regarded for example feeble-mindedness as a danger and threat to America’s conservative desire to return to a previous time when it was believed the genetic population was less polluted.^[3] Rafter uses the example of Charles Goring and his novel The English Convict in which he actually disproved his thesis that criminal anthropology does not exist, only fueling the eugenics movement further.^[3]

Nicole Rafter moves forward throughout the 20th century identifying constitutional theory in which it was thought was the body type could give evidentiary support identifying criminality.^[3] Chapter Seven introduces characters such as Earnest Hooton and William Sheldon, both supporting sterilization within society and attempting to validate Lombroso’s earlier claim that criminality can be detected through a person’s body type.^[3] Rafter states that it is possible that Hooton introduced one of America’s first criminology courses at Harvard University on Criminal Anthropology and Race Mixture.^[3]

Chapter Eight in The Criminal Brain identifies and contrasts two examples of biocriminology in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy showing how for example biocriminology was used as a motivation for genocide in Nazi Germany.^[3] Lombroso’s criminal anthropology was hard at work affecting Nazi Germany and fascist Italy leading to the Nazi party including criminals in their systematic genocide of individuals deemed as contaminating the Arian race and in Italy when Mussolini publicly sanctioned eugenic policies in 1927.^[3]

The final chapter in part two of The Criminal Brain states that sociological reasoning regarding criminality dominated the latter part of the 20th century following the brutal regimes in Germany and Italy.^[3] Yet, in the most recent decades, due to heavy influence within society on risk management and genetics research on diseases such as cancer has fueled a surge in biological theories of crime. Rafter identifies sociologist Hans Eysenck who published Crime and Personality becoming the first researcher and writer to publish on biological theories of crime in the 21st century.^[3]

Nicole Rafter in chapter ten A Criminology for the 21st Century warns of the resurgence of biocriminology within the 21st century illustrating that without determined scientific inquiry and recognition of our own ignorance, biocriminology has the potential to be misused politically just as it had been during the 20th century in Germany and Italy.^[3]

Contributions to feminist criminology

Nicole Hahn Rafter’s largest and most influential contributions to feminist criminology are her research on the historical female prison system, crime films and their social understandings that are gendered due to sex and crime, and the ways in which biological theories of crime have studied women. Her writings begin in the late 1960s parallel with the notion of including women in criminology. She is original in her writings on gender and justice and has only evolved in her feminist criminological thinking.^[7]

Rafter contributed to feminist criminology through her research and literature on the female prison system starting in 1975 and writing her last contribution in 1999. Arguing that research and writing at the time only focused on men and was written by men, Rafter led the way in documenting historical gender relations in prisons using for example the New York State Prison for Women at Auburn.^[8] Another early article Rafter published in 1985 which has been cited six times claims that women in state prisons from 1800-1935 were only given partial justice documenting the differences and the emphasis given on male prison systems rather than female.^[9] Rafter’s work on female prison systems occurs during the time when feminism is becoming interested and involved in critical criminology by writing on criminology considering the lives of women, not only men.

Nicole Rafter’s contributions to feminist criminology at Northeastern University in particular include her starting and creating the syllabus for one of the first courses on women and crime and crime films.^[2] Rafter’s Shots in the Mirror: Crime Films and Society has been cited a total of twenty-one times showing that her research on crime films is very influential in analyzing how our depiction of on screen crime in movies actually forms our understanding of everyday crime within society. She argues within this book that crime films produce social hierarchies within crime that are reproduced in everyday life, shaping our understanding of for example the sexualized female character and the villainous man.^[10] Therefore Nicole Rafter greatly contributed to the literature on crime films and their reproduction in everyday crime.

Northeastern University recognizes one of Nicole Rafter’s areas of expertise as biological theories of crime.^[7] Her historical account of eugenic family studies published in 1988 and her more recent book on the biological theories and writings of Earnest A. Hooton have both been cited five times showing her influence in the field of biological theories of crime. Arguable Rafer’s most influential contribution to feminist criminology has been her re-translation and resource guide to Cesare Lombroso’s La Donna Delinquente in which she reinterprets his argument of women being inferior and therefore committing crime at a lower level than that of male offenders.^[7] Nicole Rafter has shown a large interest in the history of biological theories of crime and her translation of Criminal Woman persuades advances in further research of the history of criminology specifically surrounding crime and women.^[11]

Recent awards

Nicole Hahn Rafter's most recent two awards are the American Society of Criminology's Sutherland Award in 2009 as well as the Allen Austin Bartolemew award for Best Paper for Criminology's Darkest Hour: Biocriminology in Nazi Germany.^[2]

Bibliography

Rafter (1969). How to Teach a Delinquent. Atlantic Monthly (March): 66-72.

Rafter & Christianson, Scott. (1975) New York's Second Felony Law. New York Times.

Rafter (1978). Crime and Intelligence: A Historical Look at the Low IQ Theory. In James A. Inciardi and Kenneth C. Hass (Eds.), Crime and the Criminal Justice Process. (67-74). Kendall/Hunt.

Rafter (1980a). Female State Prisoners in Tennessee: 1831-1979. Tennessee Historical Quarterly 39: 485-497.

Rafter (1980b). Too Dumb to Know Better: Cacogenic Family Studies and the Criminology of Women. Criminology 18: 3-25.

Rafter (1980c). Matrons and Molls: The Study of Women's Prison History. In James A. Inciardi and Charles E. Faupel, (Eds.), History and Crime: Implications for Criminal Justice Policy (261-270). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Rafter & Natalizia, Elena. (1981). Marxian Feminism: Implications for Criminal Justice Policy.Crime and Delinquency 27: 81-98.

Rafter & Baunach J. Phyllis. (1982a). Sex Role Operations: Strategies for Women Working in the Criminal Justice System. In Judge, Lawyer, Victim, Thief: Women , Gender Roles, and Criminal Justice (Ch. 13). Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Rafter & Stanko, A. Elizabeth. (1982b). Judge, Lawyer, Victim, Thief: Women, Gender Roles, and Criminal Justice. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Rafter (1982c). Hard Times: The Evolution of the Women's Prison System and the Example of the New York State Prison for Women at Auburn, 1893-1933. In Rafter and Stanko, (Eds.), Judge, Lawyer, Victim, Thief: Women, Gender Roles, and Criminal Justice (Ch. 11). Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Rafter (1983a). Chastising the Unchaste: Social Control Functions of the Women's Reformatory System. In Stan Cohen and Andrew Scull, (Eds.), Social Control and the State (288-311). Oxford: Martin Robertson.

Rafter (1983b). Prisons for Women, 1790-1980. In Michael H. Tonry and Norval Morris, (Eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, Vol. 5. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Rafter (1985a). Cathy Webb: Why She Would Lie in the Dotson Case. The Patriot Ledger (Quincy, Mass) 29.

Rafter (1985b). Gender, Prisons, and Prison History. Social Science History 9: 233-247.

Rafter (1985c). Partial Justice: Women in State Prisons, 1800-1935. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Rafter (1985d). Women: Second-Class Inmates. Chicago Tribune (19).

Rafter (1986). Left Out By the Left: Crime and Crime Control. Socialist Review 89: 7-23.

Rafter (1987). Even in Prison, Women and Second-class Citizens. Human Rights I14: 29-31,51.

Rafter (1988a). White Trash as Social Ideology. Transaction/ Society 26: 43-49.

Rafter (1988b). White Trash: The Eugenic Family Studies, 1877-1919. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Rafter; Williamson, G. Susan, & Cohen-Rose, Amy. (1989a). Everyone Wins: A Collaborative Model for Mainstreaming Women’s Studies. Journal of Academic Librarianship 15:20-23.

Rafter (1989b). Crime and the Family. Socialist Review 19: 123-129.

Rafter (1989c). Gender and Justice: The Equal Protection Issue. In Lynne Goodstein and Doris Mackenzie, (Eds.), The American Prison: Issues in Research and Policy (89-109). New York: Plenum Press.

Rafter (1989d). Prisons, Women Inmates In. In Helen Tierney, (Ed.), Women’s Studies Encyclopedia, Vol. 1 (288-290). New York: Greenwood Press.

Rafter (1990a). Crime and the Family. Women and Criminal Justice 1:73-86.

Rafter (1990b). Equal Protection Forcing Changes in Women’s Prisons. Correction Law Reporter 2: 49, 51-52.

Rafter (1990c). Partial Justice: Women, Prisons, and Social Control (2nd Ed). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Rafter (1990d). The Social Construction of Crime and Crime Control. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 27: 376-389.

Rafter (1991a). Equal Treatment or Different Treatment? The Origins of Today's Policy Dilemmas in the Care of Incarcerated Women. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Female Offenders. The June 7, 1991 Forum on Issues in Corrections. Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Rafter (1991b). Prison Reform Movement, 1870-1930. In Helen Tierney, (Ed.), Women Studies Encyclopedia, Vol. II (361-363). New York: Greenwood Press.

Rafter (1992a). Claims-making and Socio-cultural Context in the First U.S. Eugenics campaign. Social Problems 39:17-34.

Rafter (1992b). Some Consequences of Strict Constructionism. Social Problems 39: 38-39.

Rafter (1994). Eugenics, Class, and the Professionalization of Social Control. In George Bridges and Martha Myers, (Eds.), Inequality and Social Control (214-227). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Rafter (1995). International Feminist Perspectives in Criminology: Engendering a Discipline. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Rafter & Cuklanz, Lisa. (1997a). ‘Gender, Representation, and Social Control’: An Interdisciplinary Women’s Studies Course. Women and Criminal Justice. 8(4): 99-109.

Rafter (1997b). Creating Born Criminals. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Rafter (1997c). Psychopathy and the Evolution of Criminological Knowledge. Theoretical Criminology I 2: 235-59.

Rafter (1997d). The More Things Change... Women’s Review of Books XIV 10-11: 3-4.

Rafter (1997e) The Realization of Partial Justice: A Case Study in Social Control. In James Marquart and Jonathan Sorensen, (Eds.), Contemporary and Classical Reading (69-83). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Rafter (1997f). Transgression Obsession. Review of Ann-Louise Shapiro, Breaking the Codes: Female Criminality in Fin-de-Siècle Paris. In Women’s Review of Books XV 1:23-24.

Rafter & Stanley, Debra. (1999). Prisons in America: A Reference Handbook. Contemporary World Issues Series.

Rafter (2000a). Encyclopedia of Women and Crime. Phoenix AZ: Oryx Press.

Rafter (2000b). Shots in the Mirror: Crime Films and Society. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rafter (2001a). American Criminal Trial Films: An Overview of their Development, 1930-2000. Journal of Law and Society 28 (1): 9-25.

Rafter (2001b). Feminism: Criminological Aspects. In Joshua Dressler (Ed.), MacMillan Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice. New York: MacMillan Reference Books.

Rafter (2001c). National Prison Association. The Oxford Companion to United States History. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rafter (2001d). Seeing and Believing: Images of Heredity in Biological Theories of Crime. Brooklyn Law Review 67(1): 71-99.

Rafter & Gibson, Mary. (2004a). Criminal Women by Cesare Lombroso Introduction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Rafter (2004b). Earnest A. Hooton and the Biological Tradition in American Criminology. Criminology 42 (3): 735-771.

Rafter (2004c). The Criminalization of Mental Retardation. In Steven Noll and James Trend, Jr. (Eds.), Perpetual Children 232-257.

Rafter (2004d). The Unrepentant Horse-slasher: Moral Insanity and the Origins of Criminological Thought. Criminology 42 (4): 977-1006.

Rafter (2005). Badfellas: Movie Psychos, Popular Culture, and Law. In Michael Freeman, (Ed.), Law and Popular Culture (339-357). Oxford, England: University Press.

Rafter (2005). Criminal Anthropology: Its Reception in the United States and the Nature of its Appeal. In Peter Becker and Richard Wetzell, (Eds.), Criminals and Their Scientists: Essays on the History of Criminology. Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.

Rafter (2005). Cesare Lombroso and the Origins of Criminology: Rethinking Criminological Tradition. In Stuart Henry and Mark Lanier, The Essential Criminology Reader 33-42. Boulder, CO: Westview/Basic Books.

Rafter (2005). The Murderous Dutch Fiddler: Criminology, History, and the Problem of Phrenology. Theoretical Criminology 9 (1): 65-96.

Rafter (2006a). Apes, Men and Teeth: Earnest A. Hooton and Eugenic Decay. In Sue Currell and Christina Cogdell, (Eds.), Popular Eugenics: National Efficiency and Mass Culture in the 1930. Columbus Ohio: Ohio University Press.

Rafter (2006b). Gender, Genes and Crimes: An Evolving feminist Agenda. In Frances Heidensohn, (Ed.), Gender and Justice: New Concepts and Approaches (222-242). Cullompton: William Publishing.

Rafter (2006c). H. J. Eysenck in Fagin’s Kitchen: The Return to Biological theory in 20th-Century Criminology. History of the Human Sciences. 19(4): 37-56.

Rafter (2006d). Shots in the Mirror: Crime Films and Society (2nd Ed). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rafter (2007a). Crime, Film, and Criminology: Recent Sex Crime Movies. Theoretical Criminology 11(3): 403-420.

Rafter (2007b). Somatotyping, Antimodernism, and the Production of Criminological Knowledge. Criminology 45(4):805-834.

Rafter (2008a). Criminology’s Darkest Hour: Biocriminology in Nazi Germany. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 41(2): 287-306.

Rafter (2008b). The Criminal Brain: Understanding Biological Theories of Crime. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Rafter (2009). The Origins of Criminology: a Reader. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge.

References

1. Nicole Rafter. (n.d.). College of Criminal Justice. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from http://www.cj.neu.edu/faculty_and_staff/research_faculty/nicole_rafter/
2. Gustafson, J. (n.d.). Nicole Hahn Rafter-nicolerafter.com. Nicole Hahn Rafter-nicolerafter.com Retrieved April 3, 2010, from http://www.nicolerafter.com
3. Rafter, Nicole H. (1985b). "Gender, Prisons, and Prison History". Social Science History; 9: 233 -247
4. Rafter, Nicole H. (1988b). White Trash: the Eugenic Family Studies, 1877-1919. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press
5. Rafter, Nicole H. (1992a). "Claims-making and Socio-cultural Context in the First U.S. Eugenics campaign". Social Problems; 39:17-34
6. Rafter, Nicole H. (2007a). "Crime, Film, and Criminology: Recent Sex Crime Movies". Theoretical Criminology; 11(3): 403-420
7. (n.d.). Nicole Rafter. College of Criminal Justice. Retrieved April 4, 2010, from http://www.cj.neu.edu/faculty_and_staff/research_faculty/nicole_rafter/ Archived June 29, 2009, at the Wayback Machine.
8. Rafter, Nicole H. (1982c). "Hard Times: the Evolution of the Women's Prison System and the Example of the New York State Prison for Women at Auburn, 1893-1933". In: Rafter and Stanko, (Eds.), Judge, Lawyer, Victim, Thief: Women, Gender Roles, and Criminal Justice (Ch. 11). Boston: Northeastern University Press.
9. Rafter, Nicole H. (1985c). Partial Justice: Women in State Prisons, 1800-1935. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press
10. Rafter, Nicole H. (2006b). Shots in the Mirror: Crime Films and Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
11. Gartner, R. (n.d.). "Cesare Lombroso and Guglielmo Ferrero. Criminal Woman, the Prostitute, and the Normal Woman. Translated and with a new introduction by Nicole Hahn Rafter and Mary Gibson". Canadian Journal of Sociology Online. Retrieved April 6, 2010, from www.cjsonline.ca/pdf/crimwoman