Early attempts to explain crime were difficult concepts to grasp, and even further frustrating to reconcile with what was known in the world at that time. As much of the thinking of the day was focused upon politics and religion, these two repositories of knowledge were believed to hold the keys to why people acted against others or violated the norms, mores and values of the community. In the theories below the reader will see how the evolution of criminological explanations for miscreant behavior and strategies for redemption of one’s soul through judicial and correctional techniques, have progressed through time. Perspectives on racism and sexism have also, over time, fostered notions that some were predisposed to violating community soc

PRE-CLASSICAL THEORY

As European society attempted to come to terms with the causal factors of crime in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, scholars realized that there were no simplistic answers available for why criminal behavior was a component of society. In fact, the entire concept of crime was murky. One of the pre-eminent scholars of the time, Saint Thomas Aquinas, focused his work on trying to better understand the concept of criminal behavior through a lens of spiritual power. Much of the belief structure of the 1300s through the 1700s centered around spirituality, or the lack thereof, in peoples’ moral bearing. A king was considered to be above the law and any punishment for acts committed under their reign, in the eyes of scholars at the time. Such thinking has led to today’s underpinnings of sovereign immunity. This helped decide (for most people anyway) the notion of Divine Right– that “the king can do no wrong” and ought to be absolved of responsibility for any misdeeds (McLaren Villers, 2023). As for commoners, their acts of violation could only be explained by a general notion that man is an inherently simple creature of nature, and all of the actions of a person are directed by some nebulous super power which was not at all understood. Early criminologists could only believe that the acts of violation of society’s rules at the time were due to the pressures exerted upon the violator by some external power. This thinking became known as the demonological theory of criminality (Rahimzadeh, 2015), in which the spirit exerting the undesired characteristics of behavior on a person was a substantial, if not overwhelming, power brought upon by a true demon. As this seemed to be an explanation, no further attempt to resolve the real causation of, or issues created by, crime.

Because the accused individual’s actions seemed to inform society that the defendant was possessed by demonic spirits, the only cure to the situation was for a testimony of the power and effectiveness of the demon spirit. Typically prescribed testimonies, or “ordeals,”, involved sacrifices, worships, challenges and ordeals by water and fire. The belief was that water and fire were powerful cleansing agents of ones’ soul, and would help identify the spirit and exorcize it from the accused. If an offender were to plead “not guilty,” he might be offered the choice of whether he might be put up for trial upon God and the country, or by twelve men or upon God only. Society believed that this would render “the judgment of God” in the matter, feeling that God would sort out any innocent parties through the strong belief of righteousness. Examples of ordeals included tying a large stone around a man’s neck and rowing him out into the center of a pond, burning someone at the stake or on a pyre, or through a trial by combat. Oaths of innocence and participation in ordeals in the medieval judicial system today seem barbaric, Draconian and fraught with ill-conceived tactics, yet are also seen to have played an important role in determining an offender’s guilt. Over time, the fairness of such processes came into question, and by the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment, these past crude methods of determining guilt and accountability gave way to more rational, studied inquiry as to how people ought to be held responsible if they broke society’s laws.

Punishment as a right of society was understood and became part of the early belief structure of criminology. Because he was overtaken by an evil spirit, the accused was considered to be a depraved soul who could only be reclaimed through torture and pain. Thinking was soon to change, however. Hobbes believed that the fear of swift and certain punishment at the hands of a monarch could provide a significant deterrent from committing sinful acts which were the equivalent to crimes (Hobbes, 1651/1968). Hobbes and the theosophist movement (most notably St. Thomas Aquinas, and the social contract writers Donte Alighieri, Machiavelli, Martin Luther and Jean Bodin) laid the backdrop for Cesar Beccaria’s classical school which occurred at a later stage in history. The harsh pre-classical thinking fell by the wayside with the passage of time and the advancement of knowledge (Abyssinia Law, 2022).

CLASSICAL SCHOOL

As a new era of knowledge, understanding and human empathy emerged in the mid-to- late 1700s, an enlightened approach to the sanctions imposed on violators in society evolved. At the forefront of the Classical School was Cesare Beccaria, born in aristocracy in Milan, Italy, in 1738. As discussed in the Pre-Classical era, people were beginning to take a stand against what they believed to be the outlandish harbingers of today’s “cruel and unusual punishments.” The conditions fueling these punishments were deemed to be unacceptable, arbitrary and inherently corrupt, rather than focusing on what was generating the inappropriate criminal behaviors. Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham were two influential scholars who advocated for new ideas and approaches to addressing crime. Rooted in their studies were the concept that men were inherently rational beings, capable of making choices between good and evil, and that any bad acts or criminality they performed were as a result of free will. In this case, the free will “choice” they make is a risk-versus-reward proposition (Schmalleger, 2021).

Beccaria and two friends Pietro and Alessandro Verri, formed a society called “Academy of Fists” and solicited enrollment of like-minded thinkers. Indeed, today this society would likely be called a “think tank”–their stated mission and purpose was to openly examine and debate society’s ills, and assign each member a topic to study and write a treatise on issues discovered in the review. Items under their scrutiny and discussion included subjects involving economic disorder, unnecessary bureaucracy and petty tyrannical acts of government, the narrow-mindedness of religion, and intellectual pedantry (Vold et al., 2002). The society’s first writings were published in the early 1760s. Perhaps the most influential of the topics assigned to and written was Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishments (1764).

In On Crimes and Punishments (1764), Beccaria lists ten core principles that he believed would make the criminal legal system work in a more cohesive, efficient, effective, and unbiased way. One example cited was that Becarria believed that legislatures of government should not only define crimes against people, property and society, but should also prescribe punishments for the specific crimes. This would preclude the vagueness and application of crimes and punishments. Beccaria recognized that judges had a considerable amount of discretion in their oversight of proceedings before them, and suggested that the judge’s only tasks under his proposal would be to determine guilt or innocence, and then follow a predetermined sentence as set forth by the legislature.

Beccaria also suggested that all factors with the exception of the impact of the crime on society were immaterial in determining the severity of a crime. In this view, the impact of a crime on society should be used as a benchmark in determining the significance of the crime, and the punishment due upon one’s conviction. A companion principle to this is the notion of proportionality. He felt that the punishment should fit the crime, and believed that the purpose of punishment ought not to be retribution or retaliatory.

Over the next few years, scholars of the time kept a watchful eye as to whether Beccaria’s advocacies truly created a deterrent to crime and reduced recidivism. Some thinkers believed the Classical theory had fallen short of its goals of deterrence. The Classical theory, in the eyes of some critics, appeared to be too scientific and not reliant upon some very basic societal principles which were emerging with the many changes occurring in how people worked, raised families, and occupied their few hours of leisure. After some years of observation and critique, a modified approach to the Classical theory was deemed necessary. This new approach sought to further define categories of deterrence, hone in on the methods of punishments meant to better fit crimes, and how life’s contributions in the form of psychology, home and community environment, parenting, and other factors affected the ability to deter people from committing crimes. This new approach became known as the Neoclassical movement.

A footnote to this discussion reveals that, after decades of experiencing some thoughtful dormancy among criminologists, the Classical theory had a revival in the 1970s in the United States (Tomlinson, 2016). This demonstrates how certain theories of criminal behavior can ebb and flow, based on myriad factors including societal trends, perceptions of increase or decrease in crime, active or passive governance, economic shifts, and regional demographics.

NEO-CLASSICAL THEORIES

“Modern deterrence theory is perhaps the most dominant philosophy of the American criminal justice system” (Fedorek, 2019, 5.5 section, para. 1). As previously stated, the goal of deterrence theory is to modify one’s behavior through enacting a system of known laws, coupled with swift and certain punishments. A conclusion that springs from this belief is that a warning emerges, cautioning a person who is contemplating a criminal act that there will be possible consequences. “Risk versus reward” thinking assumes that the potential criminal will carefully contemplate whether “committing the crime” will carry a higher reward than “doing the time” (receiving sanctions or harsh consequences for the crime if apprehended). Two criminologists, Cornish and Clarke (1986) actively supported this thinking, and proposed the rational choice theory to explain this behavior.

Cornish and Clarke posited that violators, whether first-time offenders or seasoned career criminals, engage in a rational thought process–however brief or extended–to calculate costs and benefits prior to committing a crime in terms of maximizing the pleasure or outcome, while minimizing risk and pain. The intent of the Rational Choice Theory was not intended to determine one’s motivations for committing a crime, nor did Cornish and Clarke believe that everyone is fully rational or given to committing crimes. Instead, they believed that some people, when presented with an opportunity, will at least explore the possibility of engaging in a criminal act, and may well carry it out. They also did not believe that everyone was entirely rational; instead, it was their belief that offenders have “bounded rationality,” meaning that given time and information, a person may elect to commit a crime. They, of course, cannot wait forever to decide.

As an example, suppose a person who enjoys hiking drove to a trailhead parking lot in a park. It is mid-week during the summer, with about fifteen unoccupied cars sitting in the lot. Our hiker passes by one vehicle whose window is open slightly. As the hiker glances inside they see a light jacket partially covering a purse and an electronic tablet. Presumably, the person who left the items in the car had attempted to hide them from view using the jacket, but it had somehow slipped, revealing the purse and tablet. The hiker now sees an opportunity–and, recognizing that there may be other folks in or near other vehicles, the hiker quickly looks around. Seeing no one, the hiker still needs more time for consideration and to plan. Should he try the door to see if it opens? Does it appear the car has an alarm? Does the hiker hear voices coming from the trail? These would be the choices made by an entirely rational person. In the perfect situation, the hiker might wait until nightfall in order to perpetrate the vehicle prowl. There is time sensitivity here, however-and the hiker cannot wait for extended periods in order to take in all the possible information he may need to proceed with the crime. The hiker either enters the vehicle and takes the objects, or he walks away. He has made a quick decision based upon the facts at hand at the moment.

The routine activity theory (advanced by Cohen and Felson in 1979) differs from the rational choice theory.

Since the conclusion of World War II, more people have entered the workforce, and more people spend time away from home. Cohen and Felson stated that three things must converge in time in space for a crime to be committed – a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian. (Fedorek, 2019, 5.5 section, para. 6)

The concept is illustrated in the figure below:

There will never be a shortage of people who have a desire to exploit an opportunity for criminal gain. Likewise, there will always be targets–cars in a parking lot, houses, businesses or commercial establishments, people, or literally any item. Lastly, the lack of a suitable guardian in the vicinity creates an atmosphere where criminal activity can occur. Examples of suitable guardians include police, security officers, guard dogs, occupying your residence, alarm and camera systems, gates and secure locking devices have been shown to help deter criminal behavior. As you can see, the Routine Activity Theory focuses on the criminal “event” rather than on the criminal “offender” (Cohen & Felson, 1979).

STRAIN THEORIES

Criminologists today often take the view that there are theories involving biological and psychological explanations for why crimes are committed. In this view, crimes result from individuals afflicted by some physical or psychological condition which influences them to exhibit criminal behavior. The criminologist can then attempt to distinguish between those in society who demonstrate proclivity to commit crimes, from persons who do not. Considering this for a moment, one can see there may be flaws to these theories. Can it fully explain why crime rates are variable, often between street addresses? Are we able to use these theories to identify certain groups who may be more prone to committing crimes? When examining the need to be more certain when applying these theories to explain criminal behavior, perhaps we are better served by grouping the theories into three separate, broad categories: strain, cultural deviance, and social control (Williams & McShane,1998).

There are some similarities that arise from this theory separation. As an example, we can see that strain theory is similar to cultural deviance theory, since both concur that social strata and criminal behavior are related. Strain theorists believe that all members of society are more aligned to middle class values, and that crime generally can be explained as being the responsibility of those in lower economic status. The reasoning here is that those relegated to lower class status do not have legitimate means to reach the goal of middle-class recognition. Desperate to attain the status of middle-class, the lower class turn to illegitimate means to achieve the recognition of being in the middle economic strata (Adler et al., 1998).

Criminologists examine crimes and criminal behavior through a different lens when adopting the cultural deviance theory approach. Here, the belief is that persons occupying a lower socio-economic class have a different, conflicting value system than that of the middle class. It can be easy for someone in the lower class to unintentionally or inadvertently violate middle-class norms, laws or values when they are actually trying to ascribe to their lower-class value system (Adler et al., 1998).

As a child my attention was invited to the stately and ornate grandfather clock in my aunt and uncle’s home. Maybe you have seen one like it. The clock ran smoothly and continuously, with all of its parts synchronized. Functioning with a measure of precision, it seemed to keep perfect time, as it had for decades. Yet one day, an intricate gear, worn with age, cracked and broke, causing the whole clock to malfunction. Looking at our communities through a similar lens, it would be useful to consider how each component of society contributes to relationships with others. When society is stable, its parts run smoothly and cooperatively; but it must be remembered that, when society is stable, it is often seen that way through the lens of those in power. Through this, positive relationships and cohesive partnerships are forged, and consensus emerges from thoughtful, respectful conversations. However, if there are missing or damaged component parts, in time conditions may become dysfunctional, threatening good social order. Conversations become stilted, disagreements are less civil, creating conflict between classes, in class-oriented societies. One may argue that, throughout history, society has really never been “stable,” and so the view taken by all theories promoted tend to be through the lens of the dominant culture at the time.

Before the end of the nineteenth century, the sociologist Emile Durkheim found himself in some conflict of perspective with positivist biological theorists of the time (Adler et al., 1998). These theorists were relying on the belief that there were individual differences between criminals and non-criminals. Durkheim was concerned about the normality of crime in society, where the explanation of human conduct and misconduct was a function of the group and the social organization, not of the individual. Durkheim coined the term anomie, which he used to describe the breakdown of social order and the resultant loss of standards and values in society. He believed that the gravitation of a simple society to a more urbanized, or complex one, came with a breakdown in the recognition of the need for a common set of rules to regulate the actions of people. As a result, groups become fragmented and divisive, the discourse ratchets up and devolves into arguments and clashes. Ultimately, behavior becomes unpredictable, the social order that had existed has broken down, and society now is in Durkheim’s professed state of anomie.

Over time, Durkeim extended his view of the impact of anomie in an attempt to explain troubling non-criminal behaviors such as suicide (especially one he classified as anomic suicide), focused upon the rise in suicide rates during times of sudden economic change (either major recession/depression or even when someone experiences sudden unexpected prosperity). One can easily understand suicides when suffering cataclysmic economic loss, but why would someone consider taking their life if they suddenly inherited a fortune or won the lottery? The answer, according to Durkheim, is found in the sudden change. The social construct creates rules of order; sudden changes push the boundaries of those rules, and expectations of behavior change. Some people can handle it; others cannot take the stresses associated with wealth. Whether great financial loss or sudden great prosperity, the result is the same–anomie (Adler et al., 1998).

Some decades after Durkheim, Robert Merton attempted to explain the crime problem as a derivative of anomie. Acknowledging some similarities, it is noted that Merton’s model has some differences from his predecessor. In Merton’s view, criminal behavior springs from conditions in society that fail to provide equity to all people. True, sudden changes in social structure can emerge from an economic windfall of some sort, but the issue then becomes having a social system which attempts to hold the same goals for all without providing equal means with which to achieve them. Merton argues that culture calls for one social condition, while not integrating what the economic reality of the structure permits. The social structure, in Merton’s view, is the root cause, and responsible for, criminal behavior (Adler et al., 1998).

The advocates of the Neoclassical theory believed that people experience and react differently to punishments, often relative to the environment in which they live (Van den Haag, 1986). As such, the person may react to punishment far differently than their peers who were the recipients of quality opportunities. In this regard, the context in which one lives their life plays an important role, and often directs crime-prevention efforts in both the Classical and Neoclassical theories. Further, any theory can create an assumption that can taint one’s behaviors or influence their discretion. The focus should really shift from “why do people commit crime?” to the more proper and holistic question, “What works?” to best reduce criminal acts and therefore lower recidivism rates in communities.

Extending Merton’s Theory of Anomie further, in the United States it is important to find opportunities to move up the social ladder, but these opportunities are not equally distributed among the population. A baby being raised in a slum apartment by a single parent who is unemployed and struggling with addiction, faces a statistically slim chance at moving up in social class. A child living in a middle-class, stable family life has a better-than-average chance of reaching a professional or business position should they choose, and assuming they put forth the effort required to succeed in school, relationships and matriculation into the workforce. Finally, both children will be influenced through direct or indirect exposure to the billions of dollars spent in advertising that spreads the message that they, too, can drive a brand new car, take a luxury vacation, and record it for their viewing later on using the media technology of their choice.

The above view is reinforced by the stories of individuals in industry, sports, and entertainment. An idea ripe for the time, a chance introduction to an agent with transactional capacity, or simply being in the right place at the right time, leads a choice few persons down a path from rags to riches. Merton recognized that such circumstances may be true in some isolated cases, but realistically it was not a legitimate way for everyone to reach their economic or social goals. In fact, tactics such as over-reaching to achieve status in so-called “get-rich-quick” schemes, could lead to problems. Merton didn’t believe that a lack of means could be the only reason for the deviant behavior he was studying and the resultant escalating crime rate (Adler et al., 1998).

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORIES

social learning theory considers how new behaviors can be formed or acquired by observing and imitating the actions of others. How people in different walks of life–parents, friends, team members, co-workers and mentors–present themselves (intentionally or otherwise) as role models, makes a difference to those who look to them for life or situational guidance. Modeling in learning theory in this sense is a cognitive process, but can be acquired passively through direct observation, as a member of a team where rules of some type are to be followed, or by a more direct, formal or rigid learning structure. Pure learning theory does not necessarily require ongoing reproduction or direct reinforcement in order to be successful. Learning can also take place as a result of observing a behavior and by observing what consequences of the behavior are realized. This learning process is known as vicarious reinforcement.

Criminologists have long held that if certain expected behaviors are regularly praised or rewarded, that behavior will likely continue. In contrast, punishing the behavior consistently will likely lead to a reluctance to continue the act. Psychologists have long studied learning theory, and many of the lessons learned through animal tendencies (i.e., Pavlov’s famous experimentation with dogs, as cited in Rehman et al., 2023) can be seen to carry over to the human context. We marvel at the precision with which uniformed members of the armed forces or marching bands follow a regimented choreography. Fans cheer for their football team when a complex play is carried out to fruition, mainly because each member practiced their individual role, received praise or critique prior to the game, practiced some more to reinforce any needed changes, and finally, on game day, the work paid off. Finally, technology plays a significant role in the training and execution platform for business, sports and other professional occupations.

Unfortunately, technology and reinforced learned behaviors can also lead to the culmination of victimization and senseless criminal acts. Media violence is certainly an influence, as it is nearly impossible to watch any media segment for a glimpse at local or national news without seeing concerning (if not devastating) acts of violence, and the toll exacted on the witnesses and victims. To that sense the public has, to some degree, become desensitized in what is occurring. This desensitization goes beyond creating an apathetic community; it leads to a sense of feeling like the problems of crime are overwhelming, and no one is able nor willing to stop it. For law-abiding members of the population, there is a cry for reinforcements to set things right: more police, or less discretion on behalf of prosecutors, stronger will in sentencing enacted by judges, and any reasons at all to warehouse convicts to protect society from them, whether they receive any rehabilitative care or not. Those in the community who are of a criminal mindset may look to what is broadcast in media, films, or portrayals in order to exploit gaps, look for areas where vulnerable people may be targeted, or simply to get a better sense as to the “risk versus reward” of the particular crime in which they may participate.

Social Learning Theory greatly depends upon the concept of modeling as mentioned above. The criminologist Bandura argued that there are three types of modeling modalities (Sutton, 2021):

1. Live models, where an actual person is demonstrating the desired behavior.
2. Verbal instruction, in which an individual describes the desired behavior in detail and instructs the participant in how to engage in the behavior.
3. Symbolic, by which modeling occurs by means of the media (movies, television, Internet, video games, literature and radio, as examples). The symbolic stimuli can either be present in the form of real or fictional characters.

How might we better explain aggression? By the application of Social Learning Theory concepts to crime studies, several useful ideas have been identified. In trying to explain a broader theory of criminal behavior, the criminalists Ronald Akers and Robert Burgess took the basic principles of the Social Learning Theory, and aligned them with Edwin Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory. On one hand, the Akers/Burgess alliance proposes that criminal behavior is grounded through both social and non-social circumstances, and is further achieved via situations involving direct reinforcement, vicarious reinforcement, explicit instruction, and direct and indirect observation (Burgess & Akers, 1966). For example, in a neighborhood where criminal activity is normative, a seasoned criminal might teach a youngster how to hot-wire the ignition on a car in order to steal the vehicle. Here, the likelihood of criminal activity in a neighborhood where such behaviors are commonplace, increases the chances that exposure to criminal deviance will occur.

CULTURAL DEVIANCE THEORIES

cultural deviance theories claim that people who are deemed to be in a lower socio-economic class have a different set of values that tend to conflict with the values of what is viewed to be the more normative middle class. A fundamental flaw with theories following this line of thinking is believing that when people conform to their own value system and honor their culture, they may be viewed as being in violation of conventional or middle-class norms. The Cultural Deviance Theory was championed by criminologist Walter B. Miller (1958), and contributed a significant amount of research to sociologists Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, both of whom were part of a larger theoretical project in 1942 attempting to understand and explain social deviance and crime in the rapidly expanding immigrant neighborhoods of Chicago in the 1930s. Miller identified six elements of lower-class subculture that he labeled “focal concerns,” of which lower-class youth were focused. The six areas are:

1. Trouble – Getting into it, and staying out of it. The “trouble” here came in the form of law enforcement, where respect for the law did not emerge from an altruistic sense of morality, but from a fear of punishment.
2. Toughness – In the lower-class neighborhood, toughness was defined as a disregard for consequences, as well as disdain for literary, artistic and scholarly pursuits. Disavowing a need for formal education, a young person might feel more respected among peers if they were instead “street-wise”, if they outwardly displayed an objectification of women, and openly engaged in certain behaviors like underage smoking and drinking. Juveniles were particularly drawn to this, aspiring to be “tough” in order to gain respect and acceptance by peers.
3. Smartness – Juveniles in the above-described neighborhoods often sought to be cunning, manipulative and intimidating. In this way they could be viewed as a “smart guy”, a “wise guy”, or a “smooth operator”, constantly in contempt of the law.
4. Excitement – This aspect pointed to the “thrill-seekers” in the neighborhood. Juveniles often found their days in the neighborhood as boring and monotonous. By joining a gang or engaging in use of recreational drugs, a young person might be viewed as being at the cutting edge of the “in crowd”.
5. Fate – If a member of the lower-class population felt unappreciated or disempowered, they might put greater emphasis on actions demonstrating fate or luck than would their middle-class contemporaries. If one displayed an attitude of fearlessness or recklessness when engaged in risky activities, they may have felt that the outcome was preordained and thus beyond any intervention from morality. This mindset could act as an enabler for juvenile delinquency.
6. Autonomy – The previous five focal concerns created an atmosphere where juveniles felt it was necessary to resist control over any individual or group who sought to exert control over their lives. This included parents, teachers, law enforcement and anyone who was viewed by the youth as being in a position of authority. As a direct result of the attempt to assert their autonomy against the system, delinquent acts such as vandalism or petty crime could result.

The Cultural Deviance Theory is sometimes viewed as a component of a larger theory called the Social Disorganization Theory. The Social Disorganization Theory connects crime and delinquent behavior to cultural norms that are prevalent in particular locations, neighborhoods, or residential areas such as those of low-income groups, or in areas populated with a heavy concentration of poor immigrants. Evidence of some validity to this theory presents itself when considering ethnic gangs who operate and establish “turf” in cities. Individuals residing in such areas are often wrongly labeled as members of such gangs, and find themselves wrongly detained, arrested, or incarcerated by law enforcement personnel, or recruited or targeted by gang members who believe the person to be present in the protected turf. As you can see, the people caught up in the Cultural Deviance Theory are not necessarily committing crimes because they have an innate proclivity to criminal behavior, but instead are influenced by three factors:

1. The place they live in,
2. The people they are surrounded by, and
3. The socio-economic conditions found within their micro-environment.

All three of these elements come together to form a unique subculture influencing the individual and their chances to turn to crime. Because this theory is often used to critique immigrant and working-class cultures and neighborhoods, specifically as it attempts to explain the origins of gang subculture, it is a highly controversial theory in the 21st Century (Moule, 2015).

POSITIVIST CRIMINOLOGY

Criminologists who use the empirical evidence they obtain through valid scientific inquiry in an effort to improve society and the world we live in, are considered to be engaging in positivism. By using the basic tenets of scientific inquiry–accurately conducting measurement of elements of cases, remaining passionately objective, and making unbiased attempts to explain causality observed–positivism can emerge as a valid theory in explaining the root cause of crime. Positivists have long speculated that there were two general groups of people: criminals and non-criminals, and as such, it is our duty to determine what causes people to be criminals.

In his famous work On the Origin of Species (1859), Charles Darwin wrote extensively on the role of natural selection in the animal kingdom. A dozen years later, in Descent of Man (1871), Darwin attempted to apply these viewpoints to the human condition. Darwin postulated that some people who engage in antisocial acts might do so as a result of being a “throwback” to earlier times. He viewed a person’s devolvement into what he termed an evolutionary reversion to an early stage of mankind, might explain why the person acted counter to community values and normative behavior. Darwin never explicitly wrote about, or tried to explain, the reasons for criminal behavior, but criminologists in ensuing years utilized his ideas and applied them to their personal studies relating to criminal causation.

Shortly after Darwin’s work, the work of Cesare Lombroso, a member of the so-called “Italian School” of criminology, caused criminologists to take notice (Wolfgang, 1961). Lombroso was a medical student who, later, became a professor of psychiatry at the University of Turin. He theorized that, due to physical features that were distinguishable from non-criminals, some people were “born criminals”. Lombroso proposed that criminals were a lower form of life, more apt to display traits and dispositions more crude than those of their non-criminal counterparts. He also believed that, by studying five physical characteristics, such as jaw size, arm span, etc., predictors to the person’s inclination to engage in criminal behavior would emerge, and in the case of some of his predecessors, were influenced by, or relied upon, racist stereotypes (B. Foster-Grahler, personal communication, January 27, 2024).

BIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL POSITIVISM

Unfortunately for the study of criminology, sociological theory and empirical research are sometimes considered by experts as exclusively responsible for criminal behavior. Cast aside are critical factors such as personality and human biology, almost like being seen as irrelevant to the discussion. Further, psychological theory sometimes delves into the individual to the exclusion of external facts like the predispositions with which we are born, the interactions with others in often complex situations. A comprehensive approach would consider the totality of circumstances influencing and affecting an individual, both internal and external in nature (Adler et al., 1998).

According to psychologists, a variety of possibilities can be considered for individual differences between people who live normal, law-abiding lives, and those predisposed to committing crimes. A short list of these possibilities might include poor or undeveloped moral attitudes, inadequate or non-existent socialization during formative childhood years, experiencing the absence of one of the parents for differing reasons, emotional immaturity, and having a defective conscience. When looking at how crime may be related to personality factors, it is important to evaluate some baseline information about the person. How was their aggression learned? What are emotional “triggers” that lead to violent or delinquent actions? Does the individual have a particular crime of choice, and are they somehow related to certain personality factors? All these questions, and more, help to assess the person’s potential to plan crimes, carry them out, and be receptive to potential rehabilitation if interrupted at some point.

The recognized father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), postulated that an individual’s psychological well-being is dependent upon a healthy and robust interaction among the id, ego and superego-the three basic components of the human psyche (Adler et al., 1998). The id is responsible for providing powerful urges and is a driver for seeking gratification and satisfaction. The ego can be seen as a referee for the personality of the individual, acting in the role as moderator between the id and the superego. The superego takes on the role of keeper of the moral code, or the individual’s conscience. It was Freud’s position that criminal behavior possibly resulted due to an overactive superego or conscience. As Freud treated patients, he noted several who were suffering from overpowering feelings of guilt and who committed crimes so that they might be apprehended and punished (Freud, 1920, 1927). Once they had been punished, they experienced almost immediate relief from the guilt which they had been carrying. As a counterpoint argument, Freud provided an alternative proposition: in the case of an individual being described above feeling unbearable guilt, perhaps it was because that person’s conscience was not too strong, but instead, too weak, and as a result, was unable to resist or control the impulses of the id. If one or both parents are absent in this person’s childhood and no other person is available to provide nurturing care, life guidance and to set reasonable limits, Freud believed that the absence of such structure could lead to an unrestrained id and lead straight to a path of delinquency.

The psychoanalytic theory of criminality subscribes to the notion that there are three possible causes behind one’s engagement in criminal acts:

1. A conscience so overbearing that it arouses feelings of guilt, as described above.
2. A conscience so weak that it cannot control the individual’s criminal impulses.
3. The individual’s need for immediate gratification.

Regarding this third element, a defect in the character formation of delinquents may drive them to satisfy their desires immediately, regardless of the presence of sure consequences. This urge is attributed to the id by psychoanalysts, and is so strong that any personal relationships the individual makes with others is important only as a means to an end to achieve the act of gratification. The individual doesn’t necessarily care about the wholesomeness or long-term intentions of a relationship–they are only concerned with the immediate gratification they are seeking, and little, if anything more, beyond it.

Other examples exist of psychological theories supporting the roots of criminal behavior, including the well-studied Maternal Deprivation and Attachment Theory (Adler et al., 1998). To further examine psychological theories involving Maternal Deprivation and Attachment Theory, baby monkeys were given a choice between two artificially-constructed “monkeys.” One monkey, made from raw, uncovered cage wire, was equipped to dispense milk. The other was made from cage wire as well, but was covered in soft fabric. That monkey did not deliver milk. The monkeys interacted with the monkey with soft fabric. Criminologists believe that is because the feeling of warmth, comfort, safety and security were more important than even food was. So, how does this relate to the study of crime? Many years of research shows that the development of social and emotional maternal bonds emerge shortly after the birth of any mammal, and the strength of this bond deeply affects the child’s ability to form social attachments to others throughout their lifetime. Case in point: when an outside influence, such as a street gang, provides motivation for enhanced self-esteem, peer acceptance and economic opportunities through crime, impressionable youth who have lacked acceptance in their lives, often will gravitate to the offer.

Criminologists have searched for biological explanations for criminal behavior. Recent advances in science and technology have led to a broad acceptance that biology is certainly a factor in criminal behavior, but is admittedly only one piece to the puzzle. One prominent report, published by the criminologist Adrian Raine et al., introduced in 1997 the concept that criminal behavior springs from some flaw or defect in an individual’s biological makeup, after hypothesizing that there would be significant differences in the brain activity in the prefrontal cortex of the brain. As an example, Raine et al. hypothesized that the prefrontal cortex in a murderer should have lower activity visibly demonstrated. After conducting a study using Positron Emissions Technology (PET) scans to compare the brains of two groups (convicted murderers who had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, and non-murderers), their hypothesis was confirmed. Raine et al. concluded that the study suggests there may be some biological factors that make some individuals more predisposed to committing violent acts. They listed three general areas for focus on biological explanations for crime:

1. Criminal behavior is a function of heredity, passed down generationally at the chromosome level. One example of note is the XYY chromosomal deviation.
2. Neurotransmitter dysfunction–perhaps explained by a chemical imbalance in the person’s system, creating a biochemical triggering of aggressive or hostile behavior..
3. Brain abnormality, which could occur as a result of either heredity or neurotransmitter dysfunction, or resulting from brain trauma.

Other studies are either mentioned or, in some cases, summarized, regarding the development of a text and learning curricula geared to this level. The subject matter covered includes: “Wilson’s ‘sociobiology’ [1975 study], identical twin studies, the XYY chromosomal deviation, premenstrual syndrome, the male hormone correlation with violent crime, biological origins of schizophrenia and alcoholism, temporal lobe epilepsy, and biochemical triggering of hostile behavior” (Taylor, 1984). Of note, these extensive studies have laid the groundwork for criminal defense strategies, similar to that of an insanity defense, by claiming that a genetic or biological defense should be considered in order to mitigate criminal responsibility in a case of deviant criminal behavior.

THE CHICAGO SCHOOL

Think about crimes of opportunity: doesn’t it seem that normal people might be tempted to commit a crime of shoplifting, for example, if the storekeeper disappeared out of view for a brief time, and there were no cameras to capture the image of the thief? In this regard, you see normal persons responding as we might expect to the immediate situation. What is lacking here are personal values and a moral compass–knowing the difference between right and wrong, and exercising self-control to not commit the crime. The theorists of the chicago school subscribed to this idea, as opposed to believing that abnormal persons acted out some sort of individual sickness, leading them to commit criminal acts (Adler et al., 1998). The Chicago School of criminologists further believed that systemic social disorganization might be the underlying cause of the problem in a criminalized area, and the only way to correct this would be through assisting the community in ways that could lead to a reduction of crime.

In 1934, the Chicago Area Project was initiated to study the effects and potential arising out of reorganization of the neighborhood. Backing the project were two well-known criminologists, Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, representing the Institute for Juvenile Research (1942). The project attempted to coordinate existing community action and support groups, including schools, churches, labor unions, clubs and businesses. Recreational venues, increased and localized presence of law enforcement, and upgrades to neighborhood schools, were instituted with the intent to control delinquency. An extended benefit of the project were improvements to community sanitation and the general appearance of the areas of the city involved.

A look back fifty years later to the outcomes derived from the city of Chicago’s first community-based delinquency program offered a dose of reality and modest success (Chicago Area Project, n.d.-b). South Chicago, the city’s largest area targeted, remained very much like it did fifty years before. Although pollution from the area’s surrounding steel mills had been cleaned up, the visible examples and on-ground reminders of urban decay were not. Boarded-up buildings, trash-littered vacant lots, and severely deteriorated housing units characterized the areas that Shaw and McKay originally targeted for improvement.

Edward Burgess (1925) created the Concentric Zone Model shown above. The original Concentric Zone Model contained only five zones; a sixth zone was added later (the “Factory Zone”, due to the relocation of industrial components closer to the city center for efficiency). This zone may or may not apply to all situations. The circles included:

1. The Center Core, known as the Central Business District of a city. This area was considered largely unsuitable for long-term housing, and consisted of government buildings, retail establishments, etc.
2. The Factory Zone: as mentioned above.
3. The Zone of Transition. This area lies just outside the Central Business District, and is mixed-use in nature. This zone frequently has a diverse population, to include both low-income residents and some businesses.
4. The Zone of Independent Workers’ Homes: traveling further from the Central Business District one encounters this zone, readily identifiable by older houses and small apartments. The residents of this zone are typically middle-class working folks who hold jobs in the factories or are manual laborers. Some small shops and services may be available for convenience of those living in this zone.
5. Moving further out, one finds the Zone of Better Residences. As the name implies, you will find larger and nicer homes here, and their occupants are, by and large, middle-class families. The area tends to be more spacious, and parks, schools, and certain recreational or entertainment venues may be found here. This zone tends to be generally quieter, and has fewer businesses.
6. The Commuter Zone is the outer ring of the model. This zone generally finds people who hold jobs in the city, but who prefer to have more space as well as peace and quiet. Residences in this zone are typically detached, and garden spots or mini-farms are present in many cases. This zone is less populated than the others, although larger shopping centers, supermarkets, and strip malls are present, to cater to the needs of the residents.

Consider the area in which you reside, or places you frequent. In which zone would you consider your residence to be located? Does the Burgess Concentric Zone Model apply well to the area in which you currently live? Are there major differences, such as evidence that certain zones are hard to differentiate or don’t exist at all?

The Chicago Area Project remains in place, working in any ways it can to act as a self-help group, committed mainly to community treatment of juvenile delinquency. Its mission has not changed over the 86 years of its existence: “To work toward the prevention and eradication of juvenile delinquency through the development and support of affiliated local community self-help efforts in communities where the need is greatest” (Chicago Area Project, n.d.-a, para. 7). Working in cooperation with Mayor Lightfoot’s INVEST South/West commercial corridor improvement strategy, it is one of ten priority communities taking part in the upgrade. However, critics argue that little has been done to improve the safety proposition for juveniles, as over 283 youth have been the victims of firearms in 2022 this year so far, with 33 deaths tallied among that number (“Chicago Shootings,” 2022). Indeed, in February 2023, Mayor Lightfoot was voted out of office. Her inability to achieve a second term was the first time in forty years this had occurred in Chicago. The Burgess model, however, has seen its applicability challenged when attempts to apply it in other complex settings are made. The reasons often are that those who wish to apply this model try to do so based upon locations of ethnic or racial geographic distribution in and around an urban area, rather than considering the more appropriate socio-economic considerations in their application.

CONSIDERING OTHER CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES

It is simply not possible, within the scope of this textbook, to identify and sufficiently cover all of the possible explanations for crime and criminal conduct. As you can see from the entries above, myriad theories, supported and unsupported concepts, and geopolitical biases, try to explain crime causation and predisposition to crimes while looking through various spectacles–and not all are positive. Some theories have attempted to integrate ideas from other theorists’ work, and indeed over time some have collaborated to investigate their joint creations to a further extent. They hope to arrive at a new, more satisfactory, explanation of crime and criminal behavior that is evinced in their new model.

Social Reaction and Labeling Theories

In childhood, you may have heard the rhyme, “Sticks and stones may break one’s bones, but words will never hurt me.” Over your lifetime, your viewpoint may change on this matter. Words are impactful. They carry power and meaning, and one of the most harmful things we as a society can do to an individual is to apply a label to them. Adversely labeling someone carries negative connotations, and often consequences, because of the way family, neighborhoods, communities and indeed, society, views the individual. People will react to what they hear, often without substantiating the source. Were there circumstances beyond the control of the labeled individual so significant that they could not be overcome? Was the person a mere victim of circumstances? Was the label contrived in order to gain some sort of social leverage over the person by someone else seeking to climb a social or political ladder? Meanings behind the derogatory words or labels may be culturally appropriated or created through harmless interaction with friends or from within a peer group. Tastes are cultivated in this manner as well–the fashion brands we choose to wear, the brands of food and drink, as examples. We become associated with these meanings, and build a currency–a status–by our choices.

How does this relate to crime? Not everyone who breaks the law is apprehended. Even if they are, not everyone is then labeled as a criminal or deviant. This is mainly due to the social construct of crime. A crime in one part of Washington state may be viewed as serious, but less seriously taken if the same crime is committed in other parts of the state, and vice versa. Expanding this concept nationally, there can be significantly greater gaps. As an example, simple use and possession of cannabis is prohibited under federal law, but individual states in increasing numbers are legalizing recreational use of marijuana. What is then legally permitted under Washington state law (Blevins et al., 2018) may be illegal in Idaho, Wyoming and South Carolina.

What if a person is labeled? Are they likely to be treated as a criminal? A repetitive reminder of one’s minor criminal involvement in a minor first-time shoplifting offense might cause the individual to adopt that label for the rest of his or her days. Becoming so ingrained by this belittling, unhelpful attitude demonstrated by others can cause the labeled person to delve deeper and deeper into criminal behavior. The labeling effect works both ways, however. Telling someone they are a very good speaker in front of audiences might be all it takes for that person to take steps to improve so as to become an even better, more confident orator. Similarly, telling someone they can’t do anything right, can lead the person to internalize the label and withdraw, never feeling confident enough to try even the simplest task. Their belief would be, “Why should I try? I’ll only fail.”

In an important 1989 study relevant to corrections, Braithwaite studied some of the ideas mentioned above in the context of reintegrative shaming. Braithwaite believed, as many of us do, that not every social reaction to a situation is severe or cold-hearted. In fact, some reactions can be uplifting and beneficial. In this way, it is the quality of social responses that is most significant, an acknowledgment to “words matter,” as does tone of voice, timeliness and other factors.

Shaming in modern society takes two forms: stigmatizing or reintegrative. Stigmatizing, of course, carries a most negative connotation–harsh punishment, deep psychological hurt, and a degradation of a person’s bond to their family and community. In the community corrections realm, stigmatizing shaming is counter-productive, drawing a sharp divide between the offender and the community. Since the focus on reintegrative shaming is on forgiveness, personal dignity, love and a notion that the person can redeem themselves, it carries the most powerful potential for successful reintegration into society. The United States, as in some other countries, seems to appreciate stigmatizing shaming, unfortunately, as we continue down a failed path of labeling. “Stigmatizing shaming propels people towards crime whereas reintegrative shaming seeks to correct the behavior through respect and empathy” (Fedorek, 2019, 5.12 section, para. 4).

After the conclusion of World War II, it was anticipated that the United States would experience major growth in areas of the economy, culture and politics. However, Americans were taken aback by the political turmoil occurring inside and outside of the country. An entire generation of sociological scholars expressed their disenchantment with society, and importantly, with the more mainstream and traditional theories ascribed to why crimes occurred. Over the next several decades, a host of sociologists, psychologists, professionals in law and justice, and interested others, attempted to pinpoint the source of criminal behavior.

Finally, in 2018, three collaborating criminologists, Cullen, Agnew and Wilcox, who had been studying the events of the time forward, opined that critical theories of crime shared five central themes. Those central themes include:

First, to understand crime, one must appreciate the fusion between power and inequality. People with power, political and economic, have an enormous advantage in society. Second, crime is a political concept. Not all those who commit crime are caught, nor are those who are caught punished. The poor are injured the most by the enforcement of laws, while the affluent (i.e., powerful) are treated leniently. Third, the criminal justice system and its agents serve the ruling class, the capitalists . . . Fourth, the root cause of crime is capitalism because capitalism ignores the poor and their atrocious living conditions. Capitalism demands profits and growth over values and ethical considerations. Perhaps this is why crimes of the streets are punished more severely than crimes of the suites. Finally, critical theories believe the solution to crime is a more equitable society, both politically and economically. (as cited in Fedorek, 2019, 5.12 section, para. 5)

In the words of wisdom passed down through generations, we each have traveled our own pathways in life, experienced our own unique situations, thought our own thoughts. This personal time travel creates an opportunity for us to formulate our own opinions on matters such as crime, criminal behavior, and the community’s role (if any) in society’s governance. The question is: Why do you think someone commits crime?

Attributions

1. Figure 3.9: A tarred and feathered countryman is paraded past crowds in the streets. Wood engraving. by Unknown author in the Public Domain; Source states there is no known copyright.
2. Figure 3.10: Alphonse Bertillon 1913 by Unknown author is released under CC BY 4.0
3. Figure 3.11: The 1904 World’s Fair, St. Louis, Missouri: a Japanese exhibit featuring criminal identification charts based on Alphonse Bertillon’s system and framed images relating to Japanese law. Photograph, 1904. by Unknown author is released under CC BY 4.0
4. Figure 3.12: Bunsen Peak Trailhead by NPS/Diane Renkin in the Public Domain; Materials produced by federal agencies are in the public domain and may be reproduced without permission; source states photograph is in the public domain.
5. Figure 3.13: Routine Activity Theory by Nicholas Malara, for WA Open ProfTech, © SBCTC, CC BY 4.0
6. Figure 3.14: Untitled by Robert Couse-Baker is released under CC BY 2.0
7. Figure 3.15: Bandura image for social learning theory by U3190490 is released under CC BY-SA 4.0
8. Figure 3.16: Positivist School by Nicholas Malara, for WA Open ProfTech, © SBCTC, CC BY 4.0
9. Figure 3.17: Fowler’s phrenological head, Staffordshire, England, 1879-18 Wellcome L0057592 by Wellcome Images is released under CC BY 4.0
10. Figure 3.18: Burgess Concentric Zone Model by Nicholas Malara, for WA Open ProfTech, © SBCTC, CC BY 4.0
11. Figure 3.19: Punk (135334865) by Ricardo Murad is released under CC BY 3.0