Notes on Criminological Theory (Overview)

5.1 What is Theory?

  • Learning objectives: understand the role of theory and theory creation; overview of major paradigms (classical, biological, psychological, sociological explanations) and links to crime control policy.

  • Key purpose of theories in criminology:

    • Explain causes of crime (why some people commit crime).

    • Identify risk factors for crime.

    • Explain how and why laws are created and enforced.

    • Make predictions to inform policies or programs aimed at minimizing crime.

  • Foundational ideas and definitions:

    • Theory is an explanation of observations about the world; hypotheses are tested to build or modify theories.

    • The building blocks of theories are concepts (e.g., crime, delinquency, deviance) that must be defined and measured.

    • Operationalization: deciding how to measure concepts (variables).

    • Example: measuring self-control (e.g., resistance to temptation; The Marshmallow Test).

    • Measurement issues:

    • Spuriousness: a third variable causes both observed variables; e.g., ice cream sales and murder rates may be correlated due to a common third factor (seasonality, heat) rather than ice cream causing murder.

  • Explanations can be macro-level (group/societal differences) or micro-level (individual differences):

    • Macro: why some countries have more or less violent crime; gender/age patterns at the population level.

    • Micro: how individuals differ in processes that lead to crime.

  • Foundational sources and definitions (selected):

    • Paternoster & Bachman (2001): theories should fit the facts and accurately portray the world.

    • Sutherland (1934): criminology as the scientific study of breaking the law, making the law, and society’s reaction to those who break the law.

  • Relationships between theory and policy:

    • Theoretical premises guide policy and program design (e.g., if juveniles learn crime through delinquent peer networks, target at-risk youths and peer groups).

  • Key terminology to know:

    • Concept, variable, operationalization, measurement, reliability, validity, spuriousness, macro vs micro-level explanations.

    • Examples of concepts that require definition: self-control (and how to measure it).

  • Critical thinking prompts (to reflect on):

    • How do we know which theories explain crime better than others?

    • How did classical theory influence the American criminal justice system?

    • Why is biological theory of crime difficult to study without considering social context?

    • Which theory best explains criminal behavior and why?

    • Why have there been many different explanations for the origins of criminal behavior?

5.2 What Makes a Good Theory?

  • Core question: among many criminological theories, what makes one better than another?

  • Criteria established by Akers & Sellers (2013): logical consistency, scope, parsimony, testability, empirical validity, usefulness.

  • Definitions of criteria:

    • Logical consistency: theory makes sense and is internally coherent.

    • Scope: breadth of explanation (does it cover multiple crimes, ages, genders, etc.). A wider scope is preferred, provided coherence remains.

    • Parsimony: theory is concise, elegant, with few unnecessary constructs or hypotheses.

    • Testability: theory can be falsified or refuted through empirical testing; openness to falsification is essential.

    • Empirical validity: evidence from research supports (or refutes) the theory.

    • Usefulness: informs policy or practice (prevention, intervention, or enforcement strategies).

  • The role of falsifiability:

    • Popper (1965): A genuine test of a theory attempts to falsify it; testability equals falsifiability (with degrees of testability).

  • Empirical validation in criminology:

    • Gibbs (1990): empirical testing to verify or refute theories is central to scientific status.

  • Policy implications:

    • The specific policy or program suggested by a theory should be feasible and aimed at reducing crime (e.g., if delinquent peers influence youth crime, policies should focus on at-risk youths and social networks).

  • Practical takeaway:

    • A good theory balances logical coherence, broad applicability, clarity and simplicity, testability, robust empirical support, and real-world usefulness.

5.3 Pre-Classical Theory

  • Comte (1851) and the epistemological three-stage framework: theological, metaphysical, scientific.

    • Theological: explanations rely on supernatural powers; punishments are God-assigned.

    • Metaphysical: rational arguments replace supernatural explanations.

    • Scientific (positivist): knowledge comes through empirical inquiry.

  • Medieval perspective on crime:

    • Crime equated with sin; punishments justified by God-given natural law; punishment and justice were often arbitrary and severe.

    • Forms of proof (e.g., trial by battle, trial by ordeal) determined guilt with power dynamics (feudal lords, heresy, etc.).

  • Implications for crime and punishment:

    • Early approaches linked punishment to sin and divine order rather than social contract or rational choice.

5.4 Classical School

  • Key thinkers and ideas:

    • Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan, 1651/1968): humans are rational, self-interested, and capable of considering consequences; social contract involves giving up some liberty for protection of rights; people are capable of rational calculation about risks and benefits.

    • Cesare Beccaria (On Crimes and Punishments, 1764): advocate for reform to reduce cruelty and arbitrariness; punishments should fit the crime and be proportional to harm; laws should be made by the legislature; judges determine guilt; equal treatment under law; deterrence through certain, swift, and severe punishment (though severity alone is not sufficient).

    • Jeremy Bentham (Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1823): founder of utilitarianism; decisions judged by their overall happiness; deterrence depends on the expected future consequences; punishments should be severe enough to deter crime and maximize social welfare.

  • Impact on American criminal justice system:

    • Influenced foundational principles (equality before the law, deterrence, proportional punishment, due process).

  • Core idea: crime is a choice; individuals are rational actors who weigh costs and benefits

5.5 Neoclassical

  • Modern deterrence theory as a dominant philosophy in American systems.

  • Deterrence types:

    • General deterrence: punishment aims to deter the general population (e.g., capital punishment serving as an example to others).

    • Specific deterrence: punishment aims to reduce crime by the punished individual.

  • News Box example (Measure 11, Oregon, 1994):

    • Established mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes; removed judge discretion for lesser sentences; automatic adult trial for offenders aged 15+ in Measure 11 offenses.

    • Later assessment concerns: potential disproportionate effects on juveniles and minorities; raises questions about deterrence effectiveness for youths.

  • Additional neoclassical constructs:

    • Rational Choice Theory (Cornish & Clarke, 1986): offenders rationally calculate costs and benefits; bounded rationality acknowledges time and information constraints.

    • Situational Crime Prevention: focus on reducing opportunities rather than changing broader social conditions.

    • Routine Activity Theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979): a crime occurs when there is a motivated offender, a suitable target, and lack of a capable guardian; emphasizes how changes in modern life create opportunities for crime.

  • Key intuition:

    • Crime is a choice shaped by context and opportunity, not solely by personality or structure; prevention can be achieved by altering opportunities and perceived costs.

5.6 Positivist Criminology

  • Positivism emphasizes empirical measurement, objectivity, and causality to explain crime beyond mere choice.

  • Early observation: crime rates vary across places and over time, suggesting non-random causes.

  • Foundational figures and links:

    • Charles Darwin: Origin of Species (1859); Descent of Man (1871); ideas of natural selection and adaptation used to inform discussions about human behavior.

    • Hagan (2018): overview of positivist criminology.

  • Core premises:

    • Measurement, objectivity, and causality are central; identify factors that cause criminal behavior rather than assuming crime is purely a result of free choice.

  • Relevance to crime research:

    • Shifts focus toward biological, psychological, and environmental determinants; compatibility with other theories through integration of empirical data.

5.7 Biological and Psychological Positivism

  • Trait theories: propose fundamental differences between criminals and non-criminals; early hard determinism suggested fixed traits predict criminality.

  • Early figures and their ideas:

    • Cesare Lombroso (The Criminal Man, 1876): proponents claimed that a fraction of criminals were born criminals (atavisms) with physical features deviating from the norm (e.g., asymmetrical face, monkey-like ears, large lips).

    • Charles Goring (The English Convict) extended Lombroso’s focus to include mental deficiencies; claimed statistical differences in physical attributes and mental defects.

    • Alfred Binet and the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests; early belief that intelligence was innate and static; Goddard advocated sterilization for those deemed mentally deficient; Buck v. Bell (1927) allowed sterilization under certain conditions.

  • Modern perspective:

    • Intelligence is multifaceted and influenced by environment; genetics play a role but do not determine criminality; nature and nurture interact.

    • Contemporary research emphasizes that biology interacts with social environment; no single crime gene; various proximate causes (neurotransmitters, hormones, CNS, autonomic nervous system) relate to aggression, with multiple potential causal paths.

    • Personality traits: early studies suggested traits like impulsivity, low self-control, poor learning from punishment, and low empathy correlate with crime, but no single personality type is criminal by itself.

    • Capsi et al. (1994) highlighted robust correlates between constraint and negative emotionality and delinquency, though not deterministic.

  • Key takeaway:

    • Biology and personality influence crime, but their exact contribution is complex and mediated by social context; no single deterministic