Introduction to Criminological Theory

Definition of “Theory” and “Criminological Theory”

• Theory (general)

  • An assumption or set of assumptions that seeks to explain why or how two or more phenomena are related.
  • Think of theory as the conceptual “glue” connecting cause and effect.

• Criminological theory

  • Applies the above logic to any facet of the criminal‐justice arena.
  • Specifically addresses:
  1. Crime causation – Why individuals or groups engage in crime or delinquency.
  2. System actors – How and why police, prosecutors, judges, correctional staff, victims, etc., behave as they do.
  • In this chapter the focus narrows to item 1: theories of crime causation.

Competing Causal Assumptions Embedded in Crime Theories

Each theoretical perspective selects one or more “root domains” from which crime allegedly springs. Key domains mentioned:

1. Human‐nature / innate evil
   • Crime is seen as an intrinsic part of some people’s character (“born bad”).
2. Biological determinants
   • Examples: chromosome abnormalities, hormone imbalances, genetic predispositions.
   • Crime is framed as a pathophysiological phenomenon.
3. Psychological determinants
   • Examples: below‐average intelligence, failure to satisfy basic psychological needs.
   • Focus is on mental structures and processes.
4. Sociological determinants
   • Examples: social disorganization, weak or inadequate socialization, dysfunctional peer or family networks.
   • Crime becomes a social pathology.
5. Economic determinants
   • Examples: unemployment, unequal distribution of wealth.
   • Crime is interpreted as an adaptive response to material deprivation.
6. Multifactor or integrated models
   • Combine two or more of the above spheres, acknowledging interactive or feedback effects.

Why Criminological Theory Matters to Policy

1. Every policy is theory‐laden
   • Whether explicitly stated or not, ideas about cause → effect drive the design, implementation, and evaluation of criminal‐justice interventions.
2. Informed vs. uninformed decision‐making
   • Without understanding the underlying theory, policy makers are blind to theoretical limitations that can sabotage outcomes.
   • \text{Result:} wasted time, squandered budgets, and continued social harm.
3. Ethical legitimacy
   • Criminal‐justice actions intrude on liberty (arrest, detention, surveillance).
   • Robust theoretical justification is a moral prerequisite for policies that disrupt lives.

Two Major “Undesirable Consequences” When Theory Is Ignored

1. Operational Inefficiency

   • Misalignment of strategy and real‐world causal mechanisms ⇒ diminished or counterproductive results.
   • Example (implicit): launching a hormone‐balancing pharmacological program when crime is mainly driven by housing segregation.

2. Unwarranted Intrusion & Inequity

   • Individuals may suffer punitive or supervisory measures without a valid causal rationale.
   • Raises questions of fairness, due process, and human rights.

Scope of the Current Chapter

• Presents a survey of crime‐causation theories (see Table 3.1 for a full list).
• Delinquency is treated as subsumed within crime unless otherwise specified.
• For each theory, text will later address policy implications—that is, how one would design interventions if the theory were accurate.

Preview of Table 3.1 (Crime‐Causation Theories to Be Discussed)

Although the detailed table is not reproduced in this excerpt, expect coverage of models such as:

• Classical/Neoclassical (free will, deterrence)
• Positivist (biological/psychological determinism)
• Social‐structural (strain, disorganization)
• Social‐process (learning, control)
• Critical/conflict (Marxist, feminist, race‐focused)
• Developmental/life‐course (trajectories, turning points)

Each will be paired with suggested policy levers, evaluation metrics, and potential ethical pitfalls.

Key Takeaways and Study Prompts

1. Match cause & remedy: If a theory says crime is \text{X}, the policy must target \text{X}—not \text{Y}.
2. Multicausality: Rarely does one domain unilaterally explain crime; integrated approaches are gaining traction.
3. Always interrogate assumptions: Ask, “What must be true for this policy to work?” The answer is the theory.
4. Watch for value judgments: Theories that posit innate evil or low intelligence risk deterministic labeling.
5. Ethical balance: The stronger the intrusion on liberties, the stronger the theoretical (and empirical) evidence needed.

Quick mnemonic: B‐P‐S‐E (Biological, Psychological, Sociological, Economic) – the four classic pillars from which most crime theories originate.