When we look at the world we live in, we often find ourselves curious about some facet of life. We wonder about an observation we make, which often expands to a collection of similar observations. Because we are curious and are human, we look to ways to help us understand and explain what our observations are about. A theory serves as such an explanation. In the investigation of the observation and creation of a theory to explain it, we may develop hypotheses (a proposed explanation made with the limited evidence we have at hand) in order to find a starting point for our investigation. 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 if a theory is sound and applicable to situations is by application of, and examination by, scientific criteria. A set of criteria specific to judging criminological theories has been established by Akers and Sellers (2013) and has been advocated by criminologists as reasonably effective in its purpose. The criteria includes: logical consistency, scope, parsimony, testability, empirical validity, and usefulness. What do these criteria mean?

Logical consistency can be described as a theory’s ability to “make sense”, and as such, 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 non-binary 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? For the purpose of describing theory, better theories tend to have a broader scope or longer range of explanation.

A parsimonious theory is one which is concise, on-point yet simple. The criminologist intentionally limits the number of constructs or hypotheses to be tested. It introduces the least new assumptions about the subject being examined. Along with parsimony, testability is very important to 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 if the theory will be of use or practicality to the criminologist, and society as a whole. All theories in criminology will suggest how to control, manage, present or reduce crime, either through 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 policy-makers. 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 who contribute to this form of criminal enterprise.

Criminological theories attempt to explain the causes of crime. More directly, the explanations sought relate to why certain people commit a crime and what underlying risk factors for committing the crime might be in play. Having these two important questions addressed, focus may now be shifted toward understanding how and why certain laws relating to the crime are created and enforced. As the criminologist Sutherland (1924) pointed out, criminology then 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). We have to remember that many disciplines influence the study of criminology-sociology, psychology, demographics, politics as examples–so it is not uncommon for criminologists to disagree on what causes criminal behavior.

For the reasons above, however, we ought not jump to conclusions based upon the information harvested in the theory-hypothesis testing. An example that is instructive in this regard is relative to a study conducted in 2009, comparing how a rise in ice cream sales positively correlates to an increase in murder rates in New York City (McMahan, 2021). When ice cream sales go up, murders go up also. Would it be appropriate, as a result of this study, to conclude that ice cream is committing the crime of homicide? Assuredly not. Many people have traveled to New York City, as well as a number of other large metropolitan areas, and have eaten a lot of ice cream in each…but have never murdered anyone. Rather, 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? (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 assume, mistakenly, that just because some variables are related in some way, that one causes the other. Look deeper and ask further, and ask clarifying questions. Now, let’s 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