Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |

Social psychology: Altruism · Attribution · Attitudes · Conformity · Discrimination · Groups · Interpersonal relations · Obedience · Prejudice · Norms · Perception · Index · Outline

In criminology, criminal behaviour is a form of antisocial behavior and is any behaviour that has criminal intent,this may result in a crime being commited, which if detected may lead to a criminal conviction as the result of a adjudication within the criminal justice system.

Causes of criminal behavior[edit | edit source]

Within criminology there have been a number of schools of thought as to the causes of criminal behavior.

Schools of thought[edit | edit source]

In the mid-18th century criminology arose as social philosophers gave thought to crime and concepts of law. Over time, several schools of thought have developed. There were three main schools of thought in early criminological theory spanning the period from the mid-18th century to the mid-twentieth century: Classical, Positive, and Chicago. These schools of thought were superseded by several contemporary paradigms of criminology, such as the sub-culture, control, strain, labeling, critical criminology, cultural criminology, postmodern criminology, feminist criminology and others discussed below.

Classical School[edit | edit source]

Stop hand.svg
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

The Classical School, which developed in the mid 18th century, was based on utilitarian philosophy. Cesare Beccaria, author of On Crimes and Punishments (1763–64), Jeremy Bentham, inventor of the panopticon, and other classical school philosophers argued that:

  1. People have free will to choose how to act.
  2. Deterrence is based upon the notion of the human being as a 'hedonist' who seeks pleasure and avoids pain, and a 'rational calculator' weighing up the costs and benefits of the consequences of each action. Thus, it ignores the possibility of irrationality and unconscious drives as motivational factors.[How to reference and link to summary or text]
  3. Punishment (of sufficient severity) can deter people from crime, as the costs (penalties) outweigh benefits, and that severity of punishment should be proportionate to the crime.[1]
  4. The more swift and certain the punishment, the more effective it is in deterring criminal behavior.

The Classical school of thought came about at a time when major reform in penology occurred, with prisons developed as a form of punishment. Also, this time period saw many legal reforms, the French Revolution, and the development of the legal system in the United States.

Positivist School[edit | edit source]

The Positivist school presumes that criminal behavior is caused by internal and external factors outside of the individual's control. The scientific method was introduced and applied to study human behavior. Positivism can be broken up into three segments which include biological, psychological and social positivism.[2]

Italian School[edit | edit source]

Cesare Lombroso was an Italian Sociologist working in the late 19th century who is sometimes regarded as the father of criminology. He was one of the largest contributors to biological positivism and was founder of the Italian school of criminology.[3] Lombroso took a scientific approach, insisting on empirical evidence, for studying crime.[4] Considered as the founder of criminal anthropology he suggested that physiological traits such as the measurements of one's cheek bones or hairline, or a cleft palate, considered to be throwbacks to Neanderthal man, were indicative of "atavistic" criminal tendencies. This approach, influenced by the earlier theory of phrenology and by Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution, has been superseded. Enrico Ferri, a student of Lombroso, believed that social as well as biological factors played a role, and held the view that criminals should not be held responsible when factors causing their criminality were beyond their control. Criminologists have since rejected Lombroso's biological theories, with control groups not used in his studies.[5]

Sociological positivism[edit | edit source]

Sociological positivism suggests that societal factors such as poverty, membership of subcultures, or low levels of education can predispose people to crime. Adolphe Quetelet made use of data and statistical analysis to gain insight into the relationship between crime and sociological factors. He found that age, gender, poverty, education, and alcohol consumption were important factors related to crime.[6] Rawson W. Rawson utilized crime statistics to suggest a link between population density and crime rates, with crowded cities creating an environment conducive for crime.[7] Joseph Fletcher and John Glyde also presented papers to the Statistical Society of London on their studies of crime and its distribution.[8] Henry Mayhew used empirical methods and an ethnographic approach to address social questions and poverty, and presented his studies in London Labour and the London Poor.[9] Émile Durkheim viewed crime as an inevitable aspect of society, with uneven distribution of wealth and other differences among people.

Differential Association (Subcultural)[edit | edit source]

Crime is learned through association. The criminal acts learned might be generally condoning criminal conduct or be justifying crime only under specific circumstances. Interacting with antisocial peers is a major cause of crime. Criminal behavior will be repeated and become chronic if reinforced. When criminal subcultures exist, many individuals can learn associatively to commit crime and crime rates may increase in those specific locations.[10]

Chicago School[edit | edit source]

The Chicago school arose in the early twentieth century, through the work of Robert E. Park, Ernest Burgess, and other urban sociologists at the University of Chicago. In the 1920s, Park and Burgess identified five concentric zones that often exist as cities grow, including the "zone in transition" which was identified as most volatile and subject to disorder. In the 1940s, Henry McKay and Clifford R. Shaw focused on juvenile delinquents, finding that they were concentrated in the zone of transition.

Chicago School sociologists adopted a social ecology approach to studying cities, and postulated that urban neighborhoods with high levels of poverty often experience breakdown in the social structure and institutions such as family and schools. This results in social disorganization, which reduces the ability of these institutions to control behavior and creates an environment ripe for deviant behavior.

Other researchers suggested an added social-psychological link. Edwin Sutherland suggested that people learn criminal behavior from older, more experienced criminals that they may associate with.

Theoretical perspectives used in criminology include psychoanalysis, functionalism, interactionism, Marxism, econometrics, systems theory, postmodernism, genetics, neuropsychology, evolutionary psychology, etc.

Social structure theories[edit | edit source]

This theory is applied to a variety of approaches within criminology in particular and in sociology more generally as a conflict theory or structural conflict perspective in sociology and sociology of crime. As this perspective is itself broad enough, embracing as it does a diversity of positions.[11]

Social disorganization (neighborhoods)[edit | edit source]

Social disorganization theory is based on the work of Henry McKay and Clifford R. Shaw of the Chicago School.[12] Social disorganization theory postulates that neighborhoods plagued with poverty and economic deprivation tend to experience high rates of population turnover.[13] These neighborhoods also tend to have high population heterogeneity.[13] With high turnover, informal social structure often fails to develop, which in turn makes it difficult to maintain social order in a community.

Social ecology[edit | edit source]

Since the 1950s, social ecology studies have built on the social disorganization theories. Many studies have found that crime rates are associated with poverty, disorder, high numbers of abandoned buildings, and other signs of community deterioration.[13][14] As working and middle class people leave deteriorating neighborhoods, the most disadvantaged portions of the population may remain. William Julius Wilson suggested a poverty "concentration effect", which may cause neighborhoods to be isolated from the mainstream of society and become prone to violence.[15]

Strain theory (social strain theory)[edit | edit source]

Strain theory, (also known as Mertonian Anomie), advanced by American sociologist Robert Merton, suggests that mainstream culture, especially in the United States, is saturated with dreams of opportunity, freedom and prosperity; as Merton put it, the American Dream. Most people buy into this dream and it becomes a powerful cultural and psychological motivation. Merton also used the term anomie, but it meant something slightly different for him than it did for Durkheim. Merton saw the term as meaning a dichotomy between what society expected of its citizens, and what those citizens could actually achieve. Therefore, if the social structure of opportunities is unequal and prevents the majority from realizing the dream, some of them will turn to illegitimate means (crime) in order to realize it. Others will retreat or drop out into deviant subcultures (gang members, "hobos": urban homeless drunks and drug abusers).[16]

Subcultural theory[edit | edit source]

Main article: subcultural theory

Following on from the Chicago school and Strain Theory, and also drawing on Edwin Sutherland's idea of differential association, subcultural theorists focused on small cultural groups fragmenting away from the mainstream to form their own values and meanings about life.

Albert K. Cohen tied anomie theory with Freud's reaction formation idea, suggesting that delinquency among lower class youths is a reaction against the social norms of the middle class.[17] Some youth, especially from poorer areas where opportunities are scarce, might adopt social norms specific to those places which may include "toughness" and disrespect for authority. Criminal acts may result when youths conform to norms of the deviant subculture.[18]

Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin suggested that delinquency can result from differential opportunity for lower class youth.[19] Such youths may be tempted to take up criminal activities, choosing an illegitimate path that provides them more lucrative economic benefits than conventional, over legal options such as minimum wage-paying jobs available to them.[19]

British subcultural theorists focused more heavily on the issue of class, where some criminal activities were seen as 'imaginary solutions' to the problem of belonging to a subordinate class. A further study by the Chicago school looked at gangs and the influence of the interaction of gang leaders under the observation of adults.

Sociologists such as Raymond D. Gastil, have explored the impact of a Southern culture of honor on violent crime rates.[20]

Control theories[edit | edit source]

Another approach is made by the social bond or social control theory. Instead of looking for factors that make people become criminal, these theories try to explain why people do not become criminal. Travis Hirschi identified four main characteristics: "attachment to others", "belief in moral validity of rules", "commitment to achievement" and "involvement in conventional activities".[21] The more a person features those characteristics, the less the chances are that he or she becomes deviant (or criminal). On the other hand, if those factors are not present in a person, it is more likely that he or she might become criminal. Hirschi expanded on this theory, with the idea that a person with low self control is more likely to become criminal.[22]

A simple example: someone wants to have a big yacht, but does not have the means to buy one. If the person cannot exert self-control, he or she might try to get the yacht (or the means for it) in an illegal way; whereas someone with high self-control will (more likely) either wait or deny themselves that want, or seek an intelligent intermediate solution such as to join a yacht club to obtain access to using a yacht by group consolidation of resources without violating social norms. Social bonds, through peers, parents, and others, can have a countering effect on one's low self-control. For families of low socio-economic status, a factor that distinguishes families with delinquent children from those who are not delinquent is the control exerted by parents or chaperonage.[23] In addition, theorists such as Matza and Sykes argued that criminals are able to temporarily neutralize internal moral and social behavioral constraints through techniques of neutralization.

Symbolic interactionism[edit | edit source]

Symbolic interactionism draws on the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl and George Herbert Mead, as well as subcultural theory and conflict theory.[24] This school of thought focused on the relationship between the powerful state, media and conservative ruling elite on the one hand, and the less powerful groups on the other. The powerful groups had the ability to become the 'significant other' in the less powerful groups' processes of generating meaning. The former could to some extent impose their meanings on the latter, and therefore they were able to 'label' minor delinquent youngsters as criminal. These youngsters would often take on board the label, indulge in crime more readily and become actors in the 'self-fulfilling prophecy' of the powerful groups. Later developments in this set of theories were by Howard Becker and Edwin Lemert, in the mid 20th century.[25] Stanley Cohen who developed the concept of "moral panic" (describing societal reaction to spectacular, alarming social phenomena such as post-World War Two youth cultures (e.g. the Mods and Rockers in the UK in 1964, AIDS and football hooliganism).

Labeling Theory[edit | edit source]

Labeling theory refers to an individual being labeled in a particular way and was studied in great detail by Howard Becker.[26] It arrives originally from sociology but is regularly used in criminological studies. It is said that when someone is given the label of a criminal, they may reject it or accept it and go on to commit crime. Even those that initially reject the label can eventually accept it as the label becomes more well known particularly amongst their peers. This can become even more profound when the labels are about deviancy and it is said they can lead to deviancy amplification. Klein (1986) [27] conducted a test which showed that labeling theory affected some youth offenders but not others.

Individual theories[edit | edit source]

Trait theories[edit | edit source]

At the other side of the spectrum, criminologist Lonnie Athens developed a theory about how a process of brutalization by parents or peers that usually occurs in childhood results in violent crimes in adulthood. Richard Rhodes' Why They Kill describes Athens' observations about domestic and societal violence in the criminals' backgrounds. Both Athens and Rhodes reject the genetic inheritance theories.[28]

Rational choice theory[edit | edit source]

Main article: Rational choice theory (criminology)
File:Cesare Beccaria 1738-1794.jpg

Cesare Beccaria

Rational choice theory is based on the utilitarian, classical school philosophies of Cesare Beccaria, which were popularized by Jeremy Bentham. They argued that punishment, if certain, swift, and proportionate to the crime, was a deterrent for crime, with risks outweighing possible benefits to the offender. In Dei delitti e delle pene (On Crimes and Punishments, 1763–1764), Beccaria advocated a rational penology. Beccaria conceived of punishment as the necessary application of the law for a crime: thus, the judge was simply to conform his sentence to the law. Beccaria also distinguished between crime and sin, and advocated against the death penalty, as well as torture and inhumane treatments, as he did not consider them as rational deterrents.

This philosophy was replaced by the Positivist and Chicago Schools, and not revived until the 1970s with the writings of James Q. Wilson, Gary Becker's 1965 article titled "Crime and Punishment"[29] and George Stigler's 1970 article "The Optimum Enforcement of Laws".[30] Rational choice theory argues that criminals, like other people, weigh costs/risks and benefits when deciding whether or not to commit crime and think in economic terms.[31] They will also try to minimize risks of crime by considering the time, place, and other situational factors.[31]

Gary Becker, for example, acknowledged that many people operate under a high moral and ethical constraint, but considered that criminals rationally see that the benefits of their crime outweigh the cost such as the probability of apprehension, conviction, punishment, as well as their current set of opportunities. From the public policy perspective, since the cost of increasing the fine is marginal to that of the cost of increasing surveillance, one can conclude that the best policy is to maximize the fine and minimize surveillance.

With this perspective, crime prevention or reduction measures can be devised that increase effort required to commit the crime, such as target hardening.[32] Rational choice theories also suggest that increasing risk of offending and likelihood of being caught, through added surveillance, police or security guard presence, added street lighting, and other measures, are effective in reducing crime.[32]

One of the main differences between this theory and Jeremy Bentham's rational choice theory, which had been abandoned in criminology, is that if Bentham considered it possible to completely annihilate crime (through the panopticon), Becker's theory acknowledged that a society could not eradicate crime beneath a certain level. For example, if 25% of a supermarket's products were stolen, it would be very easy to reduce this rate to 15%, quite easy to reduce it until 5%, difficult to reduce it under 3% and nearly impossible to reduce it to zero (a feat which would cost the supermarket so much in surveillance, etc., that it would outweigh the benefits). This reveals that the goals of utilitarianism and classical liberalism have to be tempered and reduced to more modest proposals to be practically applicable.

Such rational choice theories, linked to neoliberalism, have been at the basics of crime prevention through environmental design and underpin the Market Reduction Approach to theft [33] by Mike Sutton, which is a systematic toolkit for those seeking to focus attention on "crime facilitators" by tackling the markets for stolen goods [34] that provide motivation for thieves to supply them by theft.[35]

Routine activity theory[edit | edit source]

Routine activity theory, developed by Marcus Felson and Lawrence Cohen, draws upon control theories and explains crime in terms of crime opportunities that occur in everyday life.[36] A crime opportunity requires that elements converge in time and place including (1) a motivated offender (2) suitable target or victim (3) lack of a capable guardian.[37] A guardian at a place, such as a street, could include security guards or even ordinary pedestrians who would witness the criminal act and possibly intervene or report it to police.[37] Routine activity theory was expanded by John Eck, who added a fourth element of "place manager" such as rental property managers who can take nuisance abatement measures.[38]

Biosocial theories[edit | edit source]

Biosocial criminology is an interdisciplinary field that aims to explain crime and antisocial behavior by exploring both biological factors and environmental factors. While contemporary criminology has been dominated by sociological theories, biosocial criminology also recognizes the potential contributions of fields such as genetics, neuropsychology, and evolutionary psychology.[39]

Marxist Criminology[edit | edit source]

In 1968, young British sociologists formed the National Deviance Conference (NDC) group. The group was restricted to academics and consisted of 300 members. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton and Jock Young - members of the NDC - rejected previous explanations of crime and deviance. Thus, they decided to pursue a new Marxist criminological approach.[40] In The New Criminology, they argued against the biological "positivism" perspective represented by Lombroso, Hans Eysenck and Gordon Trasler.[41]

According to the Marxist perspective on crime, "defiance is normal - the sense that men are now consciously involved…in assuring their human diversity." Thus Marxists criminologists argued in support of society in which the facts of human diversity, be it social or personal, would not be criminalized.[42] They, further, attributed the processes of crime-creation not to genetic or psychological facts, but rather to the material basis of a given society.[43]

Discussion[edit | edit source]

See: Correlates of crime

Biological theories[edit | edit source]

Genetic theories[edit | edit source]

Family background[edit | edit source]

Personality factors[edit | edit source]

Mental health factors[edit | edit source]

Psychological disorders[edit | edit source]

Economic factors[edit | edit source]

Educational background[edit | edit source]

Social factors[edit | edit source]

Ideological factors[edit | edit source]

Race, ethnicity and immigration=[edit | edit source]

Physical environmental factors[edit | edit source]

See also[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. Beccaria, Cesare (1764). Richard Davies, translator On Crimes and Punishments, and Other Writings, 64, Cambridge University Press.
  2. David, Christian Carsten. "Criminology - Crime." Cybercrime. Northamptonshire (UK), 5 June 1972. Web. 23 Feb. 2012. <>.
  3. Siegel, Larry J. (2003). Criminology, 8th edition, 7, Thomson-Wadsworth.
  4. McLennan, Gregor, Jennie Pawson, Mike Fitzgerald (1980). Crime and Society: Readings in History and Theory, 311, Routledge.
  5. Siegel, Larry J. (2003). Criminology, 8th edition, 139, Thomson-Wadsworth.
  6. Beirne, Piers (March 1987). Adolphe Quetelet and the Origins of Positivist Criminology. American Journal of Sociology 92 (5): pp. 1140–1169.
  7. Hayward, Keith J. (2004). City Limits: Crime, Consumerism and the Urban Experience, 89, Routledge.
  8. Garland, David (2002). "Of Crimes and Criminals" Maguire, Mike, Rod Morgan, Robert Reiner The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 3rd edition, 21, Oxford University Press.
  9. Henry Mayhew: London Labour and the London Poor. Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science.
  10. Anderson, Ferracuti Criminological Theory Summaries. Cullen & Agnew. URL accessed on 3 November 2011.
  11. Hester, S., Eglin, P. 1992, A Sociology of Crime, London, Routledge.
  12. Shaw, Clifford R. and McKay, Henry D. (1942). Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas, The University of Chicago Press.
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 Bursik Jr., Robert J. (1988). Social Disorganization and Theories of Crime and Delinquency: Problems and Prospects. Criminology 26 (4): p. 519–539.
  14. Morenoff, Jeffrey, Robert Sampson, Stephen Raudenbush (2001). Neighborhood Inequality, Collective Efficacy and the Spatial Dynamics of Urban Violence. Criminology 39 (3): p. 517–60.
  15. {{Ulbrich, Carsten B. "Criminology - Cybercrime." Englisch. Niddatal Ilbenstadt (DE), 15 July 1972. Web. 22 Feb. 2012. <}}
  16. Merton, Robert (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure, Free Press.
  17. Cohen, Albert (1955). Delinquent Boys, Free Press.
  18. Kornhauser, R. (1978). Social Sources of Delinquency, University of Chicago Press.
  19. 19.0 19.1 Cloward, Richard, Lloyd Ohlin (1960). Delinquency and Opportunity, Free Press.
  20. Raymond D. Gastil, "Homicide and a Regional Culture of Violence," American Sociological Review 36 (1971): 412-427.
  21. Hirschi, Travis (1969). Causes of Delinquency, Transaction Publishers.
  22. Gottfredson, M., T. Hirschi (1990). A General Theory of Crime, Stanford University Press.
  23. Wilson, Harriet (1980). Parental Supervision: A Neglected Aspect of Delinquency. British Journal of Criminology 20.
  24. Mead, George Herbert (1934). Mind Self and Society, University of Chicago Press.
  25. Becker, Howard (1963). Outsiders, Free Press.
  26. Slattery, Martin (2003). Key Ideas In Sociology, 154+, Nelson Thornes.
  27. Kelin, Malcolm (March 1986). Labeling Theory and Delinquency Policy: An Experimental Test. Criminal Justice & Behaviour 13 (1): 47–79.
  28. Rhodes, Richard (2000). Why They Kill: The Discoveries of a Maverick Criminologist, Vintage.
  29. Gary Becker, "Crime and Punishment", in Journal of Political Economy, vol. 76 (2), March–April 1968, p.196-217
  30. George Stigler, "The Optimum Enforcement of Laws", in Journal of Political Economy, vol.78 (3), May–June 1970, p. 526–536
  31. 31.0 31.1 Cornish, Derek, and Ronald V. Clarke (1986). The Reasoning Criminal, Springer-Verlag.
  32. 32.0 32.1 Clarke, Ronald V. (1992). Situational Crime Prevention, Harrow and Heston.
  33. Sutton, M. Schneider, J. and Hetherington, S. (2001) Tackling Theft with the Market Reduction Approach. Crime Reduction Research Series paper 8. Home Office. London.
  34. Sutton, M. (2010) Stolen Goods Markets. U.S. Department of Justice. Centre for Problem Oriented Policing, COPS Office. Guide No 57.
  35. Home Office Crime Reduction Website. Tackling Burglary: Market Reduction Approach.
  36. Felson, Marcus (1994). Crime and Everyday Life, Pine Forge.
  37. 37.0 37.1 Cohen, Lawrence, and Marcus Felson (1979). Social Change and Crime Rate Trends. American Sociological Review 44 (4): 588–608.
  38. Eck, John, and Julie Wartell (1997). Reducing Crime and Drug Dealing by Improving Place Management: A Randomized Experiment, National Institute of Justice.
  39. Kevin M. Beaver and Anthony Walsh. 2011. Biosocial Criminology. Chapter 1 in The Ashgate Research Companion to Biosocial Theories of Crime. 2011. Ashgate.
  40. Sparks, Richard F., "A Critique of Marxist Criminology." Crime and Justice. Vol. 2 (1980). JSTOR. 165.
  41. Sparks, Richard F., "A Critique of Marxist Criminology." Crime and Justice. Vol. 2 (1980). JSTOR. 169.
  42. Sparks, Richard F., "A Critique of Marxist Criminology." Crime and Justice. Vol. 2 (1980). JSTOR. 170 - 171
  43. J. B. Charles, C. W. G. Jasperse, K. A. van Leeuwen-Burow. "Criminology Between the Rule of Law and the Outlaws." (1976). Deventer: Kluwer D.V. 116

Further reading[edit | edit source]

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.