When we look at the world we live in, we often find ourselves curious about some facet of life. We ponder an observation we have made, which often expands to a collection of similar observations. Being human, we are curious and look for ways to understand and explain our observations. A theory serves as such an explanation. In the investigation of the observation and the creation of a theory to explain it, we may develop hypotheses in order to find a starting point for our investigation. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation made with the limited evidence we have at hand. When creating hypotheses, the criminologist is reminded to “keep it real” because, as advised by Paternoster and Bachman (2001), “Theories should attempt to portray the world accurately and must ‘fit the facts’” (as cited in Fedorek, 2019, 5.1 section, para. 1).

The best way to test whether a theory is sound and applicable to relevant situations is by the use of scientific criteria. A set of criteria specific to judging criminological theories was developed by Akers and Sellers (2013), and criminologists have advocated for its use as it is reasonably effective for this purpose. The criteria include: logical consistency, scope, parsimony, testability, empirical validity, and usefulness. What do these criteria mean?

Logical consistency is a theory’s ability to “make sense” and thus is foundational to any theory. The criminologist will ask, “Is the theory logical, and is its makeup consistent within the general view of criminology?” Scope of a theory relates to the various range or ranges of explanation. Does the theory explain crimes being committed in inclusive ways? For example, does it explain crimes being committed by males, females, and nonbinary persons? Is the theory specific to one typology of crime or all crimes? Is the theory attempting to provide explanations for crimes being committed by all ages or just a singular, specific age group? As a rule, better theories tend to have a broader scope or longer range of explanation.

A parsimonious theory is one that is concise and on point yet simple. The criminologist intentionally limits the number of constructs or hypotheses to be tested. It introduces the fewest new assumptions about the subject being examined. Along with parsimony, testability is important in the development of good theories. A theory must be open to the notion of possible fabrication or falsification. It follows that every genuine test of a theory will be an attempt to refute or falsify it. The ability to expose falsification saves the criminologist from professional embarrassment later. Some theories are more testable—or subject to refute—than others. Popper (1965) in his work had this to say about theory testing: “The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability” (pp. 36–37).

Once the many tests and examinations of theories have been concluded, those supported by evidence will be deemed to have empirical validity. Now, all that remains is to determine whether the theory will be of use or practicality to the criminologist and society as a whole. All theories in criminology suggest how to control, manage, present, or reduce crime either through a policy or program. In this way, the proposition of a particular criminal justice theory should be of value to criminologists as they seek to guide policymakers. An example would be if a theory suggests that auto thieves learn how to commit crime through a network of peers, policymakers will attempt to identify the local and regional networks that contribute to this form of criminal enterprise.

Criminological theories attempt to explain the causes of crime. More specifically, the explanations sought relate to why certain people commit a crime and what underlying risk factors for committing the crime might be in play. Once these two important questions have been addressed, focus can then be shifted toward understanding how and why certain laws relating to the crime are created and enforced. As the criminologist Edwin Sutherland (1924) pointed out, criminology may be described as “the scientific study of breaking the law, making the law, and society’s reaction to those who break the law” (p. 11). However, many disciplines influence the study of criminology, including sociology, psychology, demographics, and politics. So, it is not uncommon for criminologists to disagree on what causes criminal behavior.

For the reasons above, we ought not jump to conclusions based upon the information harvested in the theory-hypothesis testing. An instructive example in this regard involves a study conducted in 2009 that examined how a rise in ice cream sales positively correlated to an increase in murder rates in New York City (McMahan, 2021). It found that when ice cream sales went up, murders went up as well. Would it be appropriate as a result of this study to conclude that ice cream causes people to commit the crime of homicide? Assuredly not. Many people have traveled to New York City, as well as to a number of other large metropolitan areas, and have eaten a lot of ice cream in each but have never murdered anyone. Rather, there needs to be a consideration of another variable that might affect either ice cream sales, homicide rates, or both. Can you think of what this third variable might be? (See answer at the end of the chapter.)

What we can conclude from the ice cream-murder discussion is that correlation is not the same as causality. Having blind confidence in an answer being THE answer is often wrong. It is easy to mistakenly assume that because some variables are related in some way that one causes the other. It is critical that we look deeper and ask clarifying questions. We will now examine some of the traditional theories in the discipline of criminal justice.

Attributions

1. Figure 3.8: Scientific Method Word Cloud by Nicholas Malara, for WA Open ProfTech, © SBCTC, CC BY 4.0