Remember, as criminologists, we focus our theories on the why of crime. That means all the criminological theories you will read about in this book will attempt to explain what causes crime to occur. If we can understand it, we can predict it, and if we can predict it, we can potentially prevent it.

When we recognize all the factors that can cause crime, we move from a simple, straightforward view of crime, like we see in figure 1.6, to a much more complex and complicated understanding of criminal behavior as a whole, as in figure 1.7. Criminologists recognize that we are more likely to make matters worse and perpetuate crime if we do not address the underlying causes. Criminological theories also show how some reactions to crime in our criminal justice system or by society may actually cause more crime. A focus only on the consequences of crime can perpetuate the causes of crime. This leads to more crime, which then further exacerbates the causes, and the cycle continues.

To better understand this concept, let’s consider an example of someone who gets caught in this cycle. College student Mary is working while taking classes and needs her job to pay her tuition. One day as she is rushing between work and school, she is pulled over and gets a speeding ticket. The fine for the ticket is $115. Mary cannot afford to pay the fine and still cover her tuition, as well as the required textbooks and materials, the cost of gas to get to work and school, insurance, rent, food, cell phone, and everything else. Every month, Mary hopes to pay the fine, but there’s never enough money left over after her usual expenses, so the ticket sits on her desk and weighs on her mind.

One night, a friend takes Mary out to get her mind off things, and they end up getting busted for underage drinking. When the officer looks her up, she sees that Mary has an open warrant for her arrest because of the traffic ticket she did not pay. Now, Mary also has an MIP (minor in possession of alcohol) and another fine of $265.

Between the unpaid traffic ticket, the open warrant for not paying the fine, and the new MIP, Mary is now very stressed out, and she takes it out on the officer. The officer places her under arrest and delivers her to jail. She ends up spending the weekend in jail and misses two shifts at work without calling in, so she gets fired for not showing up. Mary tries to explain, but her boss tells her they do not let “criminals” work there. Now, she has no job and multiple fines on top of everything else. She needs money fast. A friend of a friend offers Mary an opportunity to make some extra money by selling some prescription meds…. You can see how easily everything can spiral out of control.

As shown in figure 1.7, criminal behavior is complex and can be hard to pin down. Sometimes interventions to address criminal behavior—like Mary receiving a ticket she cannot pay—create more opportunities or risk for crime. It is the goal of criminologists to give a more complete picture than you see in figure 1.6.

Perspective and Interpretation in Criminological Theory

A lot of criminological theories exist that attempt to explain why people commit crimes, and you will read about many of them in this book. You may be wondering why there are so many and asking yourself, “How will I know which one is right?” This is a good question with no simple answer. One theory may do a wonderful job of explaining why people steal things but do little to help us understand why people commit murder. Others may provide useful explanations for crime in urban cities but not apply to crime in small towns and remote areas. These differences in explanatory power will become clearer as you explore the different theories, but when we are assessing a theory, we should first look at perspective.

Criminology is a different kind of science than, say, biology. We cannot put crime under a microscope and examine it like a biologist would study a group of cells (figure 1.8). We cannot change one variable and watch what happens on the slide. Criminology is dynamic and involves the study of human behavior. Some degree of interpretation is needed, and people do not always agree on what they are seeing. A criminologist’s perspective will influence their interpretation of the causes and consequences of human behavior. How a criminologist asks questions, what they assume to be true of human nature, their biases, the time and culture they live in, and their identity are all important factors to consider when evaluating a theory.

For example, some people may start studying crime with the assumption that most people are good. They may ask why some people commit crime or choose to hurt others. Other aspiring criminologists may assume that people are inherently selfish and prone to violence, and they may seek to understand what stops people from committing crime. These different perspectives provide different starting points that may affect how individual researchers interpret their findings.

Feminist criminologists point to the fact that the overwhelming majority of criminological theories, especially early theories, were developed by men and were based on the study of men. How do you think that intentionally or unintentionally impacted the theories that came to be? We will address questions like this throughout this textbook, but it is good to keep them in mind. Check out figure 1.9 for a sample of famous researchers who either coined major concepts, developed mainstream theories, or have significant bodies of work in the field of criminology. The names of women criminologists are underlined and the names of Black or Hispanic/Latinx criminologists are in boxes.

Another factor that can impact perspective and interpretation in criminology is bias. Bias is a tendency, inclination, or prejudice toward or against something or someone that is often considered unfair (Psychology Today, n.d.). Biases may be known and intentional or unacknowledged and unintentional. Allowing these feelings to creep into our explanations of crime or criminal behavior can be very misleading and even dangerous.

Politics can provide a useful example of how different perspectives can change the way we look at something. The table in figure 1.10 compares generalizations of some of the major beliefs of the top three political parties in the United States. Consider how each different political party might view the causes of crime, appropriate punishments, and prevention strategies. How could these political beliefs influence theory development? If you are interested in an example of how political parties differ in their approach to crime policy issues, you have the option to compare Democratic and Republican party platforms on the use of the death penalty over time [Website].

Because criminology as a science can be more subjective and open to bias than natural sciences like biology, we must be especially vigilant. For this reason, theories must go through multiple levels of evaluation before they are considered valid.

Categorizing Criminological Theories

There are a variety of ways to categorize theories, but similarities in their assumptions, concepts, what they explain, and other factors can help us group them together. A paradigm is a perspective or lens through which one views reality. Rather than being right or wrong, true or false, a paradigm is a framework of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that shape the types of questions we ask and how we answer them. Not everyone will group theories the same way, especially since there can be overlap between ideas. Additionally, there are many subcategories that can be used to further distinguish theories from one another. However, there are some traditional and common paradigms in criminology (figure 1.11). Most of the theories discussed in this book will fit within the positivist paradigm.

Paradigms are just one tool for organizing theories based on similarities. Criminologists might also think about crime at different levels. Macro-level explanations of crime focus on the differences between large groups, while micro-level explanations focus on the differences between individuals or small groups. For example, a criminologist interested in understanding why men commit more crime than women or why one country has more violent crime than another would likely look to societal structures to develop a macro-level explanation. In contrast, a criminologist interested in how genetic factors impact crime might study patterns of behavior in a group of siblings over their lives to gain a micro-level explanation of crime.

History of Criminology

We can also look at the chronological timeline of theory development for context. For example, the Industrial Revolution changed people’s daily routines and interactions. Large developing cities became melting pots due to the influx of people with different backgrounds, cultures, and languages. The sociologists and criminologists who were seeing these changes started to study and explain them given their current understanding of society. In other words, the history, political climate, and culture at the time are embedded in the theories that develop.

There are well over 50 prominent accepted theories in criminology. We are going to cover a lot of them in this book to help you get a better idea of criminologists’ efforts to study and understand crime and criminal behavior. The timeline in figure 1.12 shows most of the theories and key events that we are going to cover. As you can see, criminology has grown as a field and a science significantly since 1764. Interestingly, although all these theories and research exist, we have not yet stopped crime.

https://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline3/latest/embed/index.html?source=17mvbvX3hreDmhAyIe0ixjBNRA_MWA1s3Wxbt2EUsuhM&font=Default&lang=en&initial_zoom=2&height=650

Consider why this may be the case. If we know the problem, why might we not have the solutions? Give some thought to what forces may be standing in the way of addressing the causes of crime identified by criminologists, particularly over the last 150 years. One might argue that we could have fixed this problem already if we really wanted to. What do you think?

From Research to Knowledge

Criminological theories are only really helpful in preventing or treating crime if they are put into action. David Krathwohl, an educational psychologist and social science researcher, created a step-by-step guide for how to design, implement, and evaluate research in social sciences like criminology. Krathwohl’s guide uses a chain of reasoning and accountability that looks like the scales of a fish in his Methods of Educational and Social Science Research (1993). He explains that the process of moving from research findings to accepted knowledge requires a lot of steps, time, and people.

In Krathwohl’s fish-scale analogy, the original researchers begin the process by generating findings, which are then examined by specialists in the field (figure 1.13). After the specialists complete their examination, researchers in the field review and evaluate the research findings and claims. Next, the information is provided beyond the specific field to generalists who are experts in the area and who are able to judge the value of the research and claims. Getting through all these steps is a major accomplishment.

Once making it through this tough gauntlet, the research findings may get picked up by journalists who spread the word to the general public. Most research never makes it this far (see figure 1.14). Once someone’s research findings and their claims progress to this point in the process, that information becomes generally accepted knowledge and is more likely to be believed.

Each step in this long process involves multiple people. If you think of each person in each step as a fish scale and picture each fish scale as overlapping the scales behind and beside it, you end up with layers that resemble the skin of a fish. It takes a lot of fish scales for someone’s research and claims to become widely accepted. Then, as research findings become accepted knowledge and other studies yield similar results, new theories may be created.

Check Your Knowledge

Licenses and Attributions for Criminological Theories: Causes, Crimes, and Consequences

Open Content, Original

“Criminological Theories: Causes, Crimes, and Consequences” by Taryn VanderPyl is licensed under CC BY 4.0. Revised by Jessica René Peterson.

“Activity: Explaining the ‘Florida Man’ with Different Paradigms” by Jessica René Peterson is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Figure 1.6. “Straightforward View of Crime” by Taryn VanderPyl is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Figure 1.7. “Complex View of Criminal Behavior” by Taryn VanderPyl is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Figure 1.9. “Sample of Influential Criminologists” by Jessica René Peterson is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Figure 1.10. “Comparison of Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian Stances” by Taryn VanderPyl is licensed under CC BY 4.0. Revised by Jessica René Peterson.

Figure 1.11. “Common Criminological Paradigms” by Jessica René Peterson is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Figure 1.12. “Criminology Theory Timeline” by Taryn VanderPyl and Jessica René Peterson is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Figure 1.13. “Process of Moving from Research Findings to Accepted Knowledge” by Taryn VanderPyl is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Figure 1.14. “Paywall” by Jessica René Peterson is licensed under CC BY 4.0. It is adapted from Brick Wall Red Structure Masonry by Michael_Laut, which is licensed under the Pixabay License.

“Criminological Theories: Causes, Crimes, and Consequences Question Set” was created by ChatGPT and is not subject to copyright. Edits for relevance, alignment, and meaningful answer feedback by Colleen Sanders are licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Open Content, Shared Previously

Figure 1.8. “Observing samples under the microscope” by Trust “Tru” Katsande is licensed under the Unsplash License.

All Rights Reserved Content

“Bias” definition from Psychology Today is included under fair use.