3.2: Criminological Perspectives

Criminological theories focus on explaining the causes of crime. They explain why some people commit a crime, identify risk factors for committing a crime, and focus on how and why certain laws are created and enforced. Sutherland (1934) has referred to criminology as the scientific study of breaking the law, making the law, and society’s reaction to those who break the law. Besides making sense of our observations, theories also strive to make predictions. If we understand why crime is happening, we can formulate policies or programs to minimize it.

Each criminological school of thought produced influential theorists and foundational frameworks that sought to address the central questions of criminality: the who, what, when, where, how, and why of criminal behavior. This section examines a representative selection of these theories; readers should be aware that the broader theoretical landscape encompasses many additional perspectives not covered here.

The Classical Theories

During the Middle Ages, theological explanations assumed human who broke laws or did not conform to conventional norms of society because of spiritual problems. A law breaker was typically thought to be possessed by demons or the devil or was a wizard or witch. These explanations assumed that when an individual broke a God-given “natural law,” they had sinned. Thus, crime was equivalent to sin. Governments had the moral authority to punish criminals or sinners, and the state was acting on behalf of God. As a result, the accused person could “prove” their innocence in a trial by battle, where only the victor was innocent, or trial by ordeal, where the innocent party would be unharmed while the guilty party would feel pain. Punishments and justice were arbitrary and severe, especially when feudal lords, with God’s permission, determined guilt. A person’s rank, status, and or wealth determined their punishment, rather than the merits of the case at hand.

As humans moved through the Renaissance, the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific revolution, they began to develop frameworks that went beyond theological explanations of human behavior. Auguste Comte (1851), an early sociologist, was interested in epistemology, or in other words, how humans obtain valid knowledge. He claimed human being’s progression of knowledge went through three separate stages: theological, metaphysical, and scientific. The theological stage used supernatural or otherworldly powers to explain behaviors, the metaphysical used rational and logical arguments, and the scientific used positivism and scientific inquiry.

We begin with Thomas Hobbes. Remember he developed the concept of social contract, which theorized that humans were rational and had the capacity to consider the consequences of their actions. Social contract thinkers believed people would be willing to invest in laws if they believed those laws were created by the government to protect them (Fedorek, 2019). Social contract thinkers would also be willing to give up some of their own self-interests if everyone else did the same.

Building on Hobbes and other social contract thinkers at the time, humans were assumed to have free will. We can choose one action over another based on perceived benefits and possible consequences. Moreover, human beings are hedonistic. Hedonism is the assumption that people will seek maximum pleasure and avoid pain (punishment). Consequently, if we grant the assumptions of classical theory, we can hold people 100% responsible for their actions because it was a choice. These assumptions have been the basis for the American criminal justice system since its inception. Although theories may have changed the landscape of understanding criminal behavior and may have changed the philosophies of punishments over time, the criminal justice system has maintained the assumption that crime is a choice. Hence, we can hold offenders 100% responsible for their actions (Fedorek, 2019).

Reformers of Classical Theory

Cesare Beccaria was disgusted with how the courts treated the accused. He wanted the courts to apply a more fair and equal treatment to the convicted instead of the cruel and harsh sentencing practices of the time. This is where his concept of proportionality comes in – the punishment must fit the crime committed. Judges were the seat of power during the time of Beccaria, and many laws were made based on the decisions of those judges. Beccaria sought to change all of that, but the Catholic Church refused (Fedorek, 2019). He claimed the sole purpose of the law was to deter people from committing the crime. Deterrence can be accomplished if the punishment is certain, swift, and severe. These ideas may seem like common sense today, but they were considered radical at the time. Beccaria’s works would later influence many future criminologists in their development of theories such as Deterrence Theory and Rational Choice Theory.

Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), was an English philosopher and a founder of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the belief that decisions are considered right or wrong depending on how effective those decisions are at producing the desired outcome. Essentially, if a punishment was severe enough to make an individual think twice about committing a crime, fewer crimes would be committed if punishments were severe; this is an early example of deterrence. Based on this theory, punishment would promote happiness throughout society by helping to reduce crime. He helped popularize classical theory throughout Europe (Bentham, 1823).

Deterrence Theory

Deterrence theory tries to change a person’s behavior through laws and punishments. Deterrence is the belief that perceived punishments will serve as a warning of possible consequences and will discourage a person from committing the crime. There are two types of deterrence: general deterrence and specific deterrence. General deterrence uses punishment to deter crime among people in the general population. It uses punishment as an example for those people who are not being punished. Specific deterrence uses punishment to reduce the crime of particular persons.

Specific Deterrence

Specific deterrence aims to dissuade an individual offender from committing future crimes by imposing penalties or consequences for their actions. Example: A college student is caught plagiarizing an assignment. The professor assigns a failing grade for the assignment, issues a formal warning, and schedules a meeting with the student to discuss academic integrity policies. The student faces the immediate consequence of a lower grade and the potential for further disciplinary action if they engage in academic dishonesty again. This specific consequence aims to deter the individual student from future instances of plagiarism by directly addressing their behavior and its consequences.

General Deterrence

General deterrence seeks to prevent potential offenders from committing crimes by showcasing the consequences faced by others who engage in similar behavior. Example: A college campus implements a zero-tolerance policy for underage drinking and hosts informational sessions during orientation week, highlighting the legal penalties and disciplinary actions associated with alcohol-related offenses. Additionally, campus police conduct regular patrols and enforce alcohol regulations, issuing citations and fines to students found violating the policy. Through these measures, the college aims to deter all students from engaging in underage drinking by demonstrating the potential consequences faced by those who violate the rules. This broader approach to deterrence aims to influence the behavior of the entire student body, not just individual offenders, by emphasizing the repercussions of illegal activities.

Positivist Theories

Cesare Lombroso said that he could tell who a criminal was just by taking body measurements. Charles Darwin theorized that some humans were evolutionary throwbacks to lesser developed humans. There were even Biological Positivists who claimed that physical features were also a prediction of intelligence. A few decades after Lombroso’s theory, Charles Goring took Lombroso’s ideas about physical differences and added mental deficiencies too. In his book The English Convict (1913), Goring argued that physical abnormalities were also evidence of mental degradations and subject to scientific experimentation for proof (Goring, 1913). The focus on mental qualities led to a new kind of biological positivism – the Intelligence Era.

Alfred Binet – the inventor of the IQ test – advocated for the idea of intelligence as a fluid mechanic. His argument was that human intelligence was not static and that we could gain and lose intelligence as we got older and more experienced. Binet wanted to evaluate school-aged youths to determine who was intellectually competent and who was not. Unfortunately, H. H. Goddard, an American psychologist, disagreed and believed that intelligence was fixed and could not change. Goddard performed IQ tests on students and used the results to categorize them based on their perceived “intelligence.” Subsequently, those who underperformed were institutionalized, deported, or sterilized (Fedorek, 2019). Goddard’s work on intellectual sterilization would lead to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Buck v. Bell (1927), which allowed for the continuation of a Virginia state law for the sexual sterilization of inmates of institutions to promote the health and safety of the patient and the welfare of society (Buck v. Bell 274 US 200 [1927], 2023).

Even after Lombroso, Goring, and Goddard, research into intelligence revealed that it was still as critical to criminality as race and social class in predicting behavior (Hirschi & Hindelang, 1977). This is because we measure and assess intelligence based on our own assumptions. How do we really measure intelligence? Is it general academic knowledge? Is someone “gifted” merely because they are academically so, or are there other considerations that could define the term? Is intelligence inherited? If a couple are having children and they are not mentally incapacitated, what does that mean for their children? What about the opposite? Does a mentally incapacitated individual mean that their offspring will be mentally deficient as well? There are also other questions, including those involving environmental influences on intelligence and cultural influences (Fedorek, 2019). Remember, Criminologists try to answer as many questions as possible.

That then takes us to criminal personalities. How do we explain sociopaths and psychopaths? In the section on Positivists, the Gluecks researched adolescent youths to determine if there was a relationship between personality types and criminal behavior. Their Individual Trait Theory pointed out that criminals differ from non-criminals on a number of biological and psychological traits. These traits cause crime in interaction with the social environment. But having the personality traits that are linked to criminal behavior does not necessarily mean that one is going to become a criminal. What is important is how many of these personality traits are present in a person (Fedorek, 2019). You could be sitting next to someone in your classroom who possesses some of the same personality characteristics of a sociopath and you would never know, or you may have them and not know it.

The point is biology and psychology do play a role in how we interact with our environment and how we react to the laws that attempt to regulate behavior. Our environment also influences our behavior both psychologically and biologically. It is all an extremely complex process that is very difficult to understand.

The Chicago Theories (revisited)

The Chicago School of Criminology is still highly influential in the field of Criminology almost 100 years after its introduction. When it started in the 1920s, it relied on the foundations of Classical and Positivist theories and expanded on them to take criminological theoretical development to a new level. Burgess, Parks, and McKenzie had postulated on the urban dynamic as a living organism and the environment it produced being ripe for criminal behavior based on Burgess’s “Concentric Zone Model.” As discussed in an earlier section, that model stated that criminal behavior was more likely within a “Zone of Transition” between the areas where people lived and worked.

Shaw and McKay, who were students of Park, discovered that within the zones of transition, there were properties that made them more likely to have higher rates of crime based on certain criteria. Their Social Disorganization Theory stated that crime in communities were caused because informal social controls broke down and criminal cultures emerged. They lack collective efficacy to fight crime and disorder. What does all this mean? Informal social controls are those rules within a community that are unspoken: community pressures, neighborhood watches, religious groups, etc. These are the norms and values of a community that go beyond normal laws of a city/state/country. If a community does not do a good job of policing itself outside of the established laws, then it will have a higher risk of a criminal element and therefore a higher chance of criminality within its population. Collective Efficacy is the ability of that community to control the behavior of its population. If a community has low collective efficacy, then groups will splinter off that could potentially rebel against the majority and increase the risk of deviance within the community. Juveniles are especially susceptible to this type of activity as they will undoubtedly break off from the main group and form their own subcultural groups.

Once a criminal subculture is established within a community, it will attract like-minded individuals, and criminal behavior will increase within that community. This is the presumption of the Differential Association Theory, first theorized by Edwin Sutherland, a prominent Chicago School positivist. Sutherland argued that criminal behavior is learned through sustained interaction with antisocial subcultures that transmit pro-criminal attitudes, motivations, and techniques. In essence, criminal conduct is not an inherent trait but an acquired one, shaped by association with individuals whose orientations are conducive to deviance. Just as individuals tend to affiliate with groups that share their interests and values, those predisposed to deviant behavior may gravitate toward subcultural groups that normalize such conduct. Examples of deviant or criminal subcultures include established street gangs such as the Bloods, Crips, Latin Kings, MS-13, Yakuza, and the Triads.

The Neoclassical Theories

This is where criminological theory really began to take off. The Classical, Positivist, and Chicago Schools laid down some great foundational works, and the Neoclassical theorists took off and ran with it. While the Classical theorists saw crime as a matter of the pursuit of self-interest in the absence of punishment, Positivists viewed crime as an adaptation of biological evolutions that could be measured through scientific experimentation. Chicagoists theorized crime as a manifestation of environmental influences, and the Neoclassical School argued that criminal behavior was specifically generated based on certain criteria and that at any given time, if the circumstances were right, crime would be highly indicative of that situation.

Taking Beccaria’s formulation of criminal behavior as a risk/reward action, Cornish and Clarke theorized that criminality was indeed a rational choice. Crime was seen as a choice that was influenced by its costs and benefits and was more likely to be deterred if its costs were raised. Information about the costs and benefits of crime could be obtained by direct experiences with punishment and avoidance, and indirectly by observing others who offended.

Derek Cornish and Ronald Clarke (1986) Rational Choice Theory does not explain motivation; instead, it assumes that some individuals will consistently commit crimes when presented with the opportunity. They do not assume offenders are entirely rational, but they do have bounded rationality, which means that offenders must make a decision in a timely fashion with the information at hand before committing a crime.

For example, if you were walking down a street and noticed an open window in a parked car, you may contemplate looking in. If you saw something inside, you may then consider stealing it. An entirely rational person may look around to see if there are any witnesses, try to determine if the owner is coming back soon, and so on. You may wait until nightfall. However, you may miss your opportunity. Thus, you need to make a quick decision with the relevant facts at that time.

Through years of observation and experimentation, it was later concluded that while criminal behavior could be considered a rational choice, most deviant behavior was situational and the perceptions of the risk of violation of the law failed to influence a person’s decision-making process but not their perception of the opportunity of the reward for the outcome of the criminal act (Piliavin, Gartner, Thornton, & Matsueda, 1986).

Remember, the Neoclassical School theorists decided to use the threat of punishment as a deterrent to crime rather than as a means to an end to crime. If a threat of punishment was severe enough to keep a crime from being committed, then a “rational” individual could theoretically make the choice to not commit that specific crime for fear of receiving a punishment that would not be in his/her/their “best interest.” But that raises another question: “What is an appropriately proportionate punishment for a specific crime that would influence a rational person to not want to commit it?”

Which then takes us into the Human Ecology portion of the Neoclassical Theories. If you recall, Human Ecology is the study of how the environment influences human behavior. It was first introduced to criminological theory by the Chicago School and later adapted by Felson and Cohen into their Routine Activity Theory, which holds that changes in daily routines affect crime rates. As technological development has made societies increasingly reliant on service-based institutions—financial institutions, grocery retailers, gas stations, clothing outlets, and others—and as individuals have expanded their movements across social and geographic space, exposure to potential criminal victimization has increased correspondingly. Daily routines now elevate the likelihood of encountering crimes such as robbery, carjacking, theft, assault, and others (Felson & Cohen, 1980). The growing dependence on public spaces and social interaction has heightened vulnerability to criminal activity, prompting an increased allocation of resources to public safety.

The Contemporary Theories

As we continue to build through the history of criminological theory development, we arrive at the Contemporary Section. In Contemporary theories, theorists have the advantage of all their forefathers’ works to guide them in their deliberations. Couple that with advancements in medical/biological sciences, psychological/social sciences, technological advancements in statistical analyses, and historical context that has now spanned multiple centuries, and there is now a recipe ripe with ingredients to build new theories. Within this period, many new and exciting theories of crime causation have been introduced and continue to try and answer the ultimate question: “Why do people commit crime?”

One of the most explosive new theories of crime causation to come out of the Contemporary School came from James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling. In 1982, they both published an article that theorized that crime was a byproduct of the physical aesthetics of a community. The more a neighborhood took care of its surroundings—buildings, parks, public spaces, etc.—the less inclined it would be to attract the criminal element (panhandlers, vagrants, thieves, vandals, drunks, and rowdy teenagers). They theorized and observed that the reverse was also true: whenever a community experienced a downturn in its physical appearance, the crime rate increased. This “Broken Windows Theory”—where “serious street crime flourishes in areas in which disorderly behavior goes unchecked” (Wilson & Kelling, 1982, p. 4)—was adapted from the Social Disorganization Theory of Shaw and McKay and has influences of Differential Association Theory from Sutherland. The main argument for Wilson and Kelling is informal social control – the ability of a community to regulate its own inhabitants despite formal law enforcement regulations. Recalling back to Social Disorganization Theory and the use of these informal social controls: neighborhood watches, church groups, close-knit neighborhoods, and so forth. The strength of a community and its “collective efficacy” in keeping the grass cut, the streets clean, the parks free of litter, the storefronts clean, the street corners free of vagrants, no prostitutes, no panhandlers, no drug use, no gangs, no broken windows—this is the hallmark of a safe neighborhood according to Wilson and Kelling.

Labeling Theory

Another key Contemporary Theory is Labeling Theory. This theory holds that once an individual is stigmatized with the label of “criminal,” that label becomes exceedingly difficult to shed regardless of subsequent conduct or rehabilitative effort. Labeling Theory has broad applications beyond criminology, as the process of categorizing individuals based on perceived actions is a common social phenomenon with significant consequences for identity and life chances. Within the field of crime causation, Labeling Theory posits that exclusion from conventional social activities on the basis of prior antisocial behavior reinforces criminal identity. Individuals labeled as criminals may internalize that designation, gradually losing the capacity to identify with any other social role. In sociological terms, this parallels the distinction between ascribed and achieved statuses: a criminal label, once applied, can function as an ascribed status that shapes subsequent life trajectories.

If we arrest and imprison someone, we hope they will be “scared straight,” or deterred from committing a crime again. Labeling theory assumes precisely the opposite: it says that labeling someone deviant increases the chances that the labeled person will continue to commit deviance. According to labeling theory, this happens because the labeled person ends up with a deviant self-image that leads to even more deviance. Deviance is the result of being labeled (Bohm & Vogel, 2011).

This effect is reinforced by the ways in which society responds to those who have been labeled. Research demonstrates that job applicants with a criminal record are significantly less likely to be hired than those without one (Pager, 2009). An individual who has acknowledged wrongdoing yet faces repeated employment rejection may experience frustration that increases the likelihood of reoffending. Furthermore, the stigma extends into social interactions: disclosing a prior incarceration to a new acquaintance may provoke withdrawal or judgment, further limiting reintegration into conventional social networks. Taken together, such experiences illustrate how a deviant label can create conditions that make it difficult for individuals to disengage from a deviant trajectory.

Labeling theory also asks whether some people and behaviors are indeed more likely than others to acquire a deviant label. Labeling theory asserts that nonlegal factors such as appearance, race, and social class affect how often official labeling occurs.

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Labeling theory assumes that someone who is labeled deviant will be more likely to commit deviance as a result. One problem that ex-prisoners face after being released back into society is that potential employers do not want to hire them. This fact makes it more likely that they will commit new offenses. Victor – Handcuffs – CC BY 2.0.

William Chambliss’s (1973) classic analysis of the “Saints” and the “Roughnecks” is an excellent example of this argument. The Saints were eight male high-school students from middle-class backgrounds who were very delinquent, while the Roughnecks were six male students in the same high school who were also very delinquent, but who came from poor, working-class families. Although the Saints’ behavior was arguably more harmful than the Roughnecks, their actions were considered harmless pranks, and they were never arrested. After graduating from high school, they went on to college and graduate and professional school and ended up in respectable careers. In contrast, the Roughnecks were widely viewed as troublemakers and often got into trouble for their behavior. As adults they either ended up in low-paying jobs or went to prison.

Labeling theory’s views on the effects of being labeled and on the importance of nonlegal factors for official labeling remain controversial. Nonetheless, the theory has greatly influenced the study of deviance and crime in the last few decades and promises to do so for many years to come.

Contemporary Theories have one major core theme that all the rest fail to take into consideration: gender. Every school of theoretical thought leading up to the Contemporary School has only observed and researched criminal behavior from the male point of view. It wasn’t until the 1970s when Dr. Freda Adler introduced the Feminist Theory of crime causation to the discussion of criminality that Criminology began to think of causation from an entirely new perspective. The Feminist Theory simply states that crime cannot be understood without thinking about the role that women must play in its causation. Crime is shaped based on varying social experiences between men and women. Focusing solely on the male perspective of the crime experience (patriarchy) completely overshadows the experiences of the female perspective and leaves out the opportunity to understand the role women have in the social framework of deviance. Women are certainly capable of being criminals, however the circumstances that lead them to becoming deviant can be different for them than it is for men. Furthermore, the higher risks of victimization for women must also be taken into consideration when the issue of rehabilitation treatments are being prescribed through the justice system.

Taking the Feminist Theory a step further, Dr. Kimberlé Crenshaw introduced her theory of Intersectionality, which posited that it was not enough that gender be considered with regards to criminal behavior, but also race and class. Criminal causation was a byproduct of discrimination and disadvantage created by systemic and institutionalized mechanisms meant to propel one dominant group over another. Prejudice, bias, and even racism were driving forces behind much of the causes of criminal behavior in many instances of non-majority groups, according to this theory. Criminologists needed to understand not only what it meant to be non-male, but also what it meant to be part of the non-majority group in order to fully grasp the inconsistency of opportunities in social experiences that could lead to a life of crime, according to the intersection of race, class, and gender.

And finally, the Contemporary School gave Criminologists the ability to take different theories of crime causation and marry them together to explain deviant behavior. Dr. Cullen initially developed this Integration Theory – the use of components of other theories to create new ones to explain crime – because trying to generalize behavior into one specific causation model was proving to be problematic. If we looked at a trend of criminal behavior over a long period of time, we could see that one theory could not quantitatively explain that trend completely by itself. However, using Dr. Cullen’s Integration Theory of Crime, criminologists could take multiple theories and use them interchangeably to fully grasp the phenomenon and more thoroughly explain the intricacies of crime causation within that specific occurrence.