HGA108 Week 1 flash cards what is criminology

Hi and welcome to our introductory lecture on what is criminology. I've taken a little bit of a traditional approach with a blackboard or sorry or white board at the back. And what we're going to do in this lecture is basically go through three things. What is criminology? What is crime and who is a criminal? And many of you might have come into this unit thinking about criminology in a particular way. So it could be that you - you thought about criminologists as people who work in labs who are profiling criminals, people running around in guns, private detectives who have criminology, criminology degrees. And what we're gonna do within this lecture is basically say, it's not quite that. There's a lot of variety within criminology. There's a lot of disagreements at time about what its edges are, what it should include, what it shouldn't include. But overall, criminology is a very exciting and interesting subject and discipline, so we're going to go through a quick journey on what it is. The first thing I want you to do right now is have a look at this slide. Pause it, go through, read through what I've put up there. These are quotes taken from lots and lots of different articles, journal articles, textbooks, introductory criminology textbooks which define criminology. And I want you to look at these and tell me which one. Well, I guess you can't tell me at the moment, but hold on to it. As we go through the lecture, we're going to come back to what criminology is again. So our first task was what is criminology? And for the next few slides, and actually the bulk of this lecture, this is what we're going to be focused on, focusing on, what is criminology. So where does criminology sit as an academic discipline? It's often thought of as a rendezvous subject. It's like where all these different subjects: sociology, economics, psychology. They come together and they date each other and they produce something in criminology. Or noted scholars have also called it a the discipline of thievery. So criminology doesn't really do much on its own. So it's built on the backs of political science, philosophy, law. All of these different enterprises come together and form our study of criminology. But what we want you to take away from this lecture and from your understanding of criminology in general is that it might borrow from all these different sources, all these different fields. But it's interested in something very, very specific, and that is crime and criminal justice institutions. So it might use sociological theories, it might use political and psychological principles in looking at what crime is, criminal - analysing criminal behaviour, thinking about criminal justice institutions. All of this are the focus of criminology. So you know when I'm just going back to often times you'll have little tidbits with, or disagreements with people who work in, for example, sociology. And there's like criminology is just a, am I allowed to say this, a bastard child of sociology. You know, you guys aren't a field in your own right. You borrow everything from everyone else. Yes, that might be true to a certain extent, but what we're doing is focusing on crime, and that's what makes it special. And that's what makes us come up with lots of different ideas. We might be taking those principles from elsewhere, but we bring them together and make them our own. And what this kind of sustained analysis on crime and criminal justice and criminal behaviour does is provides a mechanism to move away from common sense understandings of crime. So what are common sense understandings of crime? Oh, it was just bad luck. Oh, it's the problem of the individual. It's a moral failing of an individual because they committed this crime. So it moves away from those and provides all these different disciplinary tools to analyse crime. Basically, I've repeated myself a lot on this slides. Have a look at the notes that I have over here. They're pretty in detail, and it should give you an idea of what we're talking about in terms of criminology. Yeah. Now, my task over here isn't to provide an in depth overview of the history of criminology. It can be very interesting for some people. We can have whole units. One of my friends, Roberto Castelo actually did a full PhD thesis on the history of criminology. So some of you might find that interesting, but for the purposes of this particular lecture, I just want to give you some snapshots, and the main point to take away from the next two slides is that discussions and analysis of crime has been around for a long, long time. Aristotle talked about crime in terms of active free will, stimulated by desire. We have, you know, I haven't even touched on philosophical eastern thought, lots of different areas which we haven't gone into. But crime has been an intellectual driving force for centuries and centuries. And - but the history of criminology in particular is rather new. It's only a couple of 100 years old. And it really starts off in the 1960s. Sorry 1760s with the work of Beccaria and Bentham. These are two key we call them social scientists who are actually going to look at in the next week or so. So I'm not going to go into a lot of depth. But they had ideas about punishment should fit the crime. They had ideas that there should be clear, swift and appropriate punishment. And Bentham invented something called the panopticon. in And he talked about punishment in terms of utility. So in terms of what happiness it brings, happiness principle. I'm not going to go into a lot of depth over here. Karl Marx talked about crime, not directly. His work didn't engage with it directly. But he talked about the law as a way for powerful groups to subjugate the working class. And we really come back to this theme throughout this unit. Another. So this is. Then we have Lombroso is considered to be the father of criminology. He's a bit of a - bit of a dodgy character, I would say he is the father of criminology. But the way that he bought our interest into criminology had to do with what basically became the eugenics movement during, and what the Nazis essentially used about your ethnicity, your - the shape of your skull. Your biology essentially determines whether you're a criminal or not. So, father of criminology, but some problematic ideas over there and the term was actually coined in the 1880s. And then we go on Durkheim. We go on to the Chicago school. We're moving on to crime as deviance, social learning theory. Lots of, you know, criminology starts becoming a discipline in universities around the world. It really takes off. And by the 1990s, most universities have it, even universities in the global south have it. So we really see criminology emerging as a field. What I have, we've already talked about these a little bit. You can have a read over them. I don't want to spend too much time on them. But in terms of Beccaria and Bentham, the thing to remember is they were very progressive thoughts which started this criminological movement essentially, the ideas that they brought forward are what we still grapple with, ideas around the death penalty. You go out and ask people, what are your thoughts on the death penalty? Most people would say yes, we need it. But here we are, hundreds of years ago when Beccaria basically advocated against the death penalty. So very progressive thoughts. Yes, we have the father of criminology Lombroso doing very racist stuff in terms of research and very problematic ideas which were disproven over the years. But we also have people that we can be proud of to my knowledge, I haven't heard anything about them recently. But Beccaria and Bentham, there's a lot to be proud of over there. Just building up on the last slide. Bentham was also, he had ideas about decriminalising homosexuality. And if you think about it in Tasmania, it wasn't decriminalised even in the 1990s. So where criminology comes from, the ideas of criminology, how we control crimes, how we define crimes, what should be a crime? What should be a criminal act, really come from some very progressive minds. Okay, so I've basically went through a really, really rushed through what is criminology. I thought that that would take a lot more time, but it didn't. So we have a little bit more time to build on what's happening in the next few sections. We're moving on to what is crime. So this was our second aim. And this is where we kind of have some fun. Actually, it overlaps with what is criminology. Because we're looking at what is crime according to criminologists. Okay, so it's part of the criminology journey still. What are criminological approaches to define crime? Have a little think about this. What is a crime for you? What pops up in your head when I say crime, tell me about a crime? Are you thinking about murder? Are you thinking about theft? Are you thinking about home invasions? What kind of crimes pop into your mind? Hold onto those thoughts. And again, we're going to do a very one-sided attempt at, you know, working through them. In terms of criminology, there are different approaches to define crime. And I've only highlighted just to give you just three or four of these. Often times there are as many as 10 or 13 in criminology textbooks, different ways of looking at crime. There are legal definitions, human rights definitions, human diversity approaches. But our focus is really on what we're going to do in this unit, and I think it covers. There's a lot of overlap between many of them, and this gives you a very good idea of where those definitions come from. And they include legal approaches, human rights approaches, social harm conceptions and political and social, social and political approaches. Legal definitions of crime. These are also known as a juridical approach to crime. And basically, crime is an intentional act or omission in violation of criminal law, statutory or case law committed without defence or justification and sanctioned by the state. So this is a very strict legal definition, and what I want you guys to take away from this is even though it's legal, it changes over time. So what is a crime now could possibly not be a crime later, and we're going to come back to this point. I'm not going to get too carried away. Have a look at this list. What are these crimes on the books? There's blasphemy. It's still on the books, but I don't think there has been any cases around blasphemy in Australia or Tasmania. Murder, manslaughter, crimes against property, stealing electricity, and something to remember about crimes on the books and legal approaches to crime is it's not just criminal law. It also has to do with civil laws. And essentially, jaywalking can be considered to be a crime. I bet I've done something criminal in the, actually, I've done it in the last 24 hours. I didn't have the patience to look for journal articles on the UTAS website because there were too many two factor, whatever the authentication stuff. So I've downloaded one illegally through this website called, I should probably not tell you guys, but if you want to know, you can email me, but this amazing website where you basically get articles without logging into stuff. So we're always doing things which are illegal. That is piracy. That's against the copyright law. But we're doing it. So crimes on the books are not just, you know, criminal criminal acts. Okay, so there are various problems with legal definitions, though. Off the top of my head, I was just making a point about how, in the last 24 hours I've committed a crime because, in fact, for preparing for this lecture. When I was looking up at, looking up definitions of criminology, I went to dodgy websites to download articles, which is basically a form of piracy. And so legal definitions means that everybody is almost criminal. Everything is a crime. Somebody - not everything is a crime. Somebody has committed a crime, so it becomes quite - it distributes this notion of crime a lot. The other problem is, it's very reactionary in nature. So acts which were not considered to be criminal or which are not considered to be criminal aren't actually looked at and considered the same way. So if we think about domestic violence, back in the day, women were considered to be property of men. And even though assault was criminal on the books through legalistic definitions, beating up your wife wasn't so the - this kind of, this focus on definitions and legal definitions and criminal justice system means that a lot of different crimes get left out in the olden days, it was. Domestic violence is just one example, and nowadays you might hear stories of other things which are equally harmful but get left out of the books because they're not considered to be crime. They're not written as illegal or the black letter law isn't there. So another point that we can make, a similar point but a little bit different is that - let's go with domestic violence again. A vast majority of domestic violence cases are not reported. So if it doesn't come to the attention of the authorities, is it really crime? So you're committing criminal acts, but so there's this kind of, I don't know how to describe this, this sticky area in which, even if it's on the books, if there, if it hasn't been policed. If it hasn't been tried, is it really a crime? So you're guilty. It's a crime if you're guilty, it's a crime, if you know. So if it isn't, what is the point? Okay, I'm losing my train of thought over here. I'm going to readjust. The other problem with legal definitions is that it's shaped by powerful interests. Who is defining something as a crime? For example, of course. Murder, theft, stealing electricity. It's on the books. Okay, but what about the salmon industry in Tasmania? A lot of people might disagree with me, but there's actually a push towards understanding that it does enormous harm. It's, basically it leads out. I'm thinking about how to reduce this in scope. It damages rivers, it damages ecosystems. But it brings in so much money, it does so much in terms of economic development and communities and lifting people out of poverty. Employment rates. It's actually quite valuable. So the government or powerful interests which are included in this will not be defining it as a crime, even though it's doing a lot of harm. And this was an example of the environment. But we might also consider lots of other issues. For example, homosexuality, wasn't - have I made this point already? It was illegal in - it was still illegal in Tasmania until the 1990s, so and, that law on the books was shaped by dominant forces within the country. Powerful forces. And that's a problem with legal definitions that they can be shaped by things that leave out a vast majority of people. There's also possibilities of over-policing and over-criminalisation. These are concepts we're going to go into a lot more depth later. But essentially, when something is criminalised, when a particular act is criminalised, when it's - when you shine the legal light onto it, that means that the focus of police officers, the focus of the state goes on to that, and it usually released - results in over-policing of particular marginalised communities. In Australia, those could be indigenous communities. Another problem with legal definitions is that it's highly variable across jurisdictions. Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland. They have very different laws in some areas. Simultaneously internationally, there are different laws. So how we consider what is a crime there, you know, it changes from place to place, and it's very difficult to follow. So these are some of the broad problems with legal definitions. We are looking at human rights, definitions of crime and basically a crime according to this approach, a crime has occurred when your human rights are violated. If your human rights are violated, that's criminal act. It doesn't matter who's doing it. It could be the state which is doing it. It could be a private entity. It doesn't have to be criminal. It doesn't have to be on the books. For example, a hot topic issue at the moment is homelessness in Tasmania and Australia. So according to these definitions, the failure to provide social housing would be considered to be a crime. It's a state crime. The state is failing to provide you this kind of, you know, sorry, I'm losing myself a little bit. And this is really helpful because all of those different issues that we talked about in the previous slide about what the legal system leaves out, it actually provides a mechanism to include them into our understanding of crime. But there are various problems with human rights definitions, and I don't want to bore you because it will get quite monotonous if I go like, oh, legal definitions. This is why it's good. This is why it's bad. Human rights, good, bad. Social. Good. But no. I'm just going to give you some broad brushes to give you an idea of what criminologists are interested in them. The approaches we take and why we take them. So essentially, there might be criminologists who take a juridical approach and they're really interested in crime in terms of quantitative studies, in terms of what are the total number of drug arrests and why is it that this geographical area has more drug arrests than other areas, etcetera, etcetera. So those are very, you know, they're focused on legalistic definitions, but then you have people who research from human rights lenses. And for them, the interest is, you know, looking at things outside of what's defined to be criminal. And that doesn't mean that there aren't problems with human rights definitions. It might be amazing. It might provide a mechanism of looking at a particular action as a crime, and we do analysis on it. But that doesn't mean that there aren't problems. So with human rights definitions, people say that it's human rights itself. The way that it's enforced, the regime is largely compliance based. It's voluntary, so there is no policing agency. Australia is party to the UDHR. It should be upholding the right to complain asylum. But for people who are coming by sea, that right isn't given, we're systematically shirking our responsibilities in relation to this area by making it more and more difficult to claim asylum through that way. So that is a fundamental breach of human rights. Violation of human rights towards asylum seekers. But is there a policing agency which holds them responsible? It's also considered to be largely rhetorical. It's symbolic, it's ineffective, it's - and the other issue is that it's controlled by powerful interests. So who we are as criminologists, our interests are shaped by powerful interests too. You might take a human rights definition. Australian criminologists in particular, have done amazing work when it comes to asylum seekers and looking at it as state crime. Australia's actions, holding them criminal. Sharon Pickering has done some amazing work in this area, but overwhelmingly our interests around human rights are shaped by Australian needs, so it's also shaped by powerful interests. What are criminals - as criminologists what we're interested in? So asylum seeker policy in Bangladesh or asylum seeker policy in countries which host the majority of refugees and asylum seekers doesn't really get that much criminological attention. So there are problems with human rights definitions, and taking those approaches to it leaves out a lot. So the next approach that we're looking at is social and political definitions of crime. And as criminologists, I think a lot of bulk of the work falls into this arena. And criminologists really critically look at why certain behaviour and actions are defined as crime. So building on our previous example. Why is it that a man physically abusing his wife was not considered to be a crime? Why isn't that it did not go into black letter law? And we might use feminist criminal logical approaches to analyse this, we might use other social learning, Marxist approaches, lots of different ways of analysing this. Why certain behaviour actions are prioritised in public consciousness more than others? So, for example, a classic, I keep talking about all the classic examples in criminology. When you're doing an introductory lecture, it's easy to get carried away with all the classic examples, because usually we're kind of stuck into the forgiving, a particular lecture. This is the example we have to use. But a lecture like this, you kind of give a broad overview. So I keep saying classic, but a very popular example in this arena might be sexual. Sorry. Paedophiles. Okay, so why is it that particular ebbs and flow? It's in the public consciousness more. Do we view children in a particular way? Has there - I feel like paedophiles was an issue that used to work as an example before a lot better. But now we also have institutional abuse of children, which is a bigger issue. So why is it that this is more of an issue now, why wasn't an issue before? And these are important things to understand. So when we want to fight for good, when we want to do good, when we want to look at, by good, I mean I'm bringing in morality over here. Of course, there are connections between criminology and morality, but that's a whole other issue. But as criminologists, if you want to highlight crimes, if you want to highlight things which have done harm to people, then it's necessary to understand. Why is it that these things kind of escaped interrogation, escaped public consciousness? Okay, simultaneously why is it that we focus on issues like terrorism? In the after 9 11, of course, late 2000s, early 2010s, millions of dollars was wasted, I would say wasted because researchers have actually shown that it was actually wasted in all these anti- terrorism activities. Because it shows that haven't really caught many people and the number of people joining terrorist organisation remains roughly the same. It's in the fringes. In terms of, a classic example of this is domestic violence results in significant amount of more people's lives being taken, people experiencing injuries, physical injury, psychological injuries than terrorism does in Australia. But for the longest time for that duration of time, terrorism was on top of the list. So these kinds of issues are important. How criminal laws are made and why they focus on certain behaviours how laws are enforced. So what kind of policing is happening? Why is it happening in a particular way? What is the policing culture? All of these issues are of interest to criminologists. And finally, why certain groups in society might be more disadvantaged than others in these processes? Okay, there are lots of limitations of this. Guess what comes up? Powerful interests. We talked about this in legal. Human rights. Same over here. Again. It disadvantages minority groups. And even within these definitions, there is a tendency to focus on individual responsibility and psychology rather than collective and political and social or corporate responsibility. There is some change over here. We have environmental crime. We have green criminology, lots of different things coming up. But even using those social and political definitions of crime, the focus tends to be on that sick individual, on that horrible, you know, one of the case, one in a million case. Yes. The last thing that I wanted to discuss is a social harm approach. So this is different from human rights, different from political and social approaches to defining crime, even though there is some overlap with them. But it essentially has to do with it doesn't matter if a right has been violated. It doesn't matter if it's legal or not. What this kind of approach does is it considers something to be a damage or an injury, so it could be economic. It could be social. It could be psychological, it could be environmental, and it's inflicted on society, intentionally or unintentionally, so it can be an active emission or an active omission and basically moves away from those legal definitions to include immoral, wrongful or injurious acts. Guess where you can hold responsible through this way? You can hold states responsible. And it provides the ability to identify state actions as criminal. The shortcomings of these ones. I'm actually not going to repeat myself. I'll put up a slide about what they are, and you can have a little pause and have a look at the next slide. But in the interests of moving on and holding your attention, I'm going to move on to my next point. So bringing it all together, what is crime? So criminology is this. What we've gone through different ways of defining what criminologists defined crime as and here's a very popular quote. It says that there is no word in the whole lexicon of legal in criminal logical terms, which is so elusive of the definition, as which is so elusive of definition as the word crime. So it's so, it's notoriously difficult to define crime. Is it legal? Is it a human rights approach? What's happening? If there is no universal understanding, it changes through time. We covered this point. It changes from place to place, and it isn't just about causing harm, and it's culturally linked. It's very, very subjective, and we'll go through some examples of these. So an example of crimes over time is drugs, drugs. Heroin was legally available on prescription up to the 1950s. Smoking on public transport, smoking on planes, I in my lifetime, I have seen people smoke on planes, and it used to be legal. Rape in marriage. Criminalisation only began in 1981 and New South Wales was the first state to legislate. Things that used to be criminalised but now are not. Mixed bathing was only permitted from 1940s, so you couldn't go to a swimming pool with men essentially mixed. This is Australia. 1940s. Consensual homosexual sex. We've talked about this. I think I've gone through many of these examples. They also changes across jurisdiction. You guys are very critical. You know these this information. So I'm not going to go into a lot of details. But, you know, drug policy between Netherlands and Australia and Netherlands, and the United States of America is very different. So what we want to end with, remember, our last point was who is a criminal? And that's what we're going to look at in the next couple of slides, and it kind of provides a - answering this question provides a mechanism of bringing together what we've looked at in the first half. First quarter, most of this lecture. So to explore how it brings together these themes throughout the lecture, let's take a step back and think about what your answers were when I asked what is a crime? What were the kinds of actions or acts popped into your head? Previously, when I did face to face lectures, most people would come up with theft, rape, pickpocketing, alcohol fuelled violence, brawls, hooligans, things like that murder, speeding. Those were crimes. Of course, criminologists are interested in. Criminologists would agree with you, particularly ones who are taking a legal approach, would agree with you and say Yes, they are criminals. But criminologists take a step further. Many, many steps further and look at criminals in lots of different lenses. We utilise those definitions that we've done throughout this lecture. So social injury approach, human rights approach, and we bring them together. We analyse them to see how it affects people's lives, to see what causes these kinds of policies. What causes harm? What are the harms? What is the nature of victimisation? Just bringing a classic example that I want to talk about is asylum seeker policy, which I've already touched on. So just to bring the point back, criminologists have looked at this as a juridical problem. So yes, it's definitely illegal. It's against the law. People like Sharon Pickering really led the charge in looking at this as a state crime in terms of human rights frameworks and deviancy. And it really facilitated amazing research, analysing the policies, asylum seeker policies and their impacts on refugees. The long term impacts of these. So for example, the psychological impacts of being put into mandatory detention. Indefinite detention, camp life. They operate as open air prisons. Criminologists have found connections between the experience of an asylum seeker who is simply trying to fulfil their right to claim asylum, but then being put in situations and having psychological problems similar to what prisoners who are in jail for murder experience. So there's fascinating research which goes into this, and a lot of this has to do with those holding the state responsible or taking criminological approaches criminological analysis in a direction which allows that kind of analysis of the state, analysis of the victim, analysis of the crime itself. How is it perpetrated who, you know? Is it - a fascinating example of this is Wilson Security. I'll be in trouble if this is wrong. There was a particular very big private security firm which provided security to Melbourne University but also provided security to offshore detention areas, and activism within this area resulted in Wilson security like Melbourne University holding Melbourne University accountable like if you're with Wilson security, then you shouldn't be here, and I keep saying Wilson security, but I can't remember what it was and that basically led to solid change. There were changes over there in terms of security and what private agencies take place. I've digressed a lot. Human rights approaches produced fascinating research. Simultaneously, the social injury approach, which considers harm, which looks at harms analysis, has produced amazing research into border crosses things not only in Europe but also in America. So Michalowski, sorry, produced an amazing article, which actually highlighted how America's policy towards asylum, not even asylum seekers border illegal crossings, people, whatever it is, immigrants along the border from Mexico. I'm losing myself, lots of things to talk about over here. This is way before Trump and Trump built his war, this research was carried out, and it's become a lot worse now. But he basically made the claim that the over policing within this area, making it a policy issue essentially led to thousands and thousands of deaths because people took riskier routes, because people died in tragic circumstances in the deserts which are over there. And it's produced amazing research into the experiences of victimisation in this arena and calling the state actions criminal in a sense. Simultaneously. You're studying at the University of Tasmania. Most criminology textbooks in Australia, if not the world are written by someone. Some of the best people over here in the way of loin. Your criminology textbook has sorry, [incoherent] Sorry. Your textbook. So they're all I've lost my train of thought, I'm fading. It's 43 minutes. It's supposed to be a 40 minute lecture. So I'm going to quickly wrap up. But what I'm trying to say is a lot of amazing work done within this arena. Environmental crime, green criminology really emerges from this arena in which you can hold companies like Shell responsible. You can look at how the intermittent between state and corporate crime. You can look at the effects that they're having on victims. Things that escape our imagination as being criminal acts, but also associated crimes in terms of uprooting Indigenous communities from their areas in search of oil, in search of all these different things. We can look at genocide. Of course. Who is a criminal? Regimes. Authoritarian regimes, totalitarian regimes which commits genocide. We study these as criminologists. Simultaneously, we're interested in stories like Jeffrey Dahmer over here, which has, you know, this case is very, very old. But I guarantee you, in the next 2, 3 years there will be a lot of research coming up in terms of the media construction created by Netflix of Jeffrey Dahmer and how we understand criminality and how we're focused on these one in a million cases on serial killers. They, in reality, they do so little. There's, like an absolute negligible number of super super super predators. Killers like this, but we're still interested in them, and it dominates public imagination, and it creates fear, which we're going to look at in the next lecture, media and crime. So we're interested in those kinds of things, who is a criminal, criminals or serial murderers too and how we react to them. Of course they are - criminologists are interested in home invasions. They might take the approach of, you know, there are different lenses in which you could do postcode-based analysis, statistical and quantitative analysis on where these crimes occur, and you can look at factors which shape these kinds of crimes. There are other studies which narrative studies which look at it from an offender's point of view. What are the factors which shape? They're random. Sometimes it's very random that, you know, it's not an organised gang of people going around bashing into houses and breaking and entering. Sometimes it could be very random. It could be a spur of the moment. We look at how delinquents quote unquote, actually, majority of people who commit kind of just grow out of it over time at a certain age. Why is Edward Snowden a criminal? So many different areas. I've spent a lot of time on this slide, and I am conscious of the time of six minutes over. So I'm just gonna wrap up very quickly. I asked you guys to think about what your thoughts on criminology is. And you know, these were the definitions that I put up. What you find over here. There's a lot of common threads between the definitions of themselves. But if you think about the answer you chose and think about where it sits within this particular lecture, is it, what's happening? That gives you an ability to reflect on the material we've covered today. I hate to break it to you. But all of these answers are right. All of them are right. All of them are covering what we want you guys to know. And that's the fun of criminology. You can really look - as long as it intersects with crime and criminal behaviour and harms and damages and, you know, injuries of some sort. We can study it. We can look at it from the perspective of criminals and look at it from the perspective of victims. We can look at it from our perspective of powerful interests, etcetera. So, overall, key points to take home, criminology is the study of crime, but it's really, really difficult to define crime. But as criminologists we try to define them even though they change across time, culture, jurisdiction, et cetera. In fact, what makes it interesting for criminologists is the fact that it's changing all the time. We get to come up with new examples of crimes. We get to explore new case studies. Many of you are starting your criminology journey. I wouldn't be surprised if three years down the line one if you are producing an honours thesis and academic journal on the Jeffrey Dahmer's story. If you're interested in it, go for it. It's in the books. Okay? It can happen. It's in the stars. I hope you've enjoyed this lecture and yes, until next time.