Theories and Causes of Crime

Theory is a statement that explains the relationship between

abstract concepts in a meaningful way. For example,if
scientists observe that criminality rates are usually high
in neighborhoods with high unemployment rates,they
might theorize that environmental conditions influence
criminal behavior.

Theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to

explain something,especially one based on general
principles independent of the thing to be explained. Theory
serves as a model or framework for understanding human
behavior and the forces that form it. Moore(1991 as cited in
http:// faculty.jou.ufl.edu/theory) stated that theory is a
related set of concepts and principles about a phenomena.

Theory it is derived from the Greek word”theoria”

which means”contemplation or speculation(
Oxford’s Dictionary)

Theory- a plausible or scientifically acceptable

general principle or body of principles offered to
explain phenomena. It is synonymous with the terms
thesis,hypothesis,supposition,and proposition
(merriam-webster’s dictionary)

A theory is a set of interconnected statements or

propositions that explain how to or more events or
factors are related to one another.(curran and
Renzetti,1994) books.google.com.ph
Theory- Means irrelevant antonyms of fact. Facts are
real, Theory,if developed property,is about real
situations, feelings,experience,and human behavior.
An effective theory helps us to make sense of facts
that we already know and can be tested against new
facts. Ronald Akers( 2013)) books.google.com.ph

Elements of Theory:

1.Theory is logically composed of

concepts,definitions,assumptions and generalizations.

2.The major function of theory is to describe and explain.

The components of theory are concepts (ideally well

defined) and principles. A concept is a symbolic
representation of an actual thing - tree, chair, table,
computer, distance, etc. Construct is the word for concepts
with no physical referent - democracy, learning, freedom,
etc. Language enables conceptualization.One type of
construct that is used in many scientific theories is called a
variable.On the other hand,a principle expresses the
relationship between two or more concepts or
constructs(1991 as cited in http://Faculty.jou.ulfl.edu/theory)
TOPIC 2- EMPIRICAL BASES FOR CRIMINOLOGICAL
THEORIES

A.Ecological Theory- The Ecological School of

Criminological theory is also referred to as the Statistical
 Geographic or Cartographic. Ecology is the branch of
biology that deals with the interrelationship between human
organism statistics and the physical environment.This
school was called statistical because it was the first to
attempt to apply official data and statistics to the issue of
explaining criminality. The labels geographical and
cartographic have been assigned due to the fact that writers
in this group tended to rely upon maps and aerial data in
their investigations.

The ecological systems theory holds that we encounter different

environments throughout our lifespan that may influence our behavior in
varying degrees. These systems include the micro system, the
mesosystem, the exosystem, the macro system, and the chronosystem. As
cited in explorable.com.ecological-system- theory.
B. Economic /Marxist(conflict theory) The inspirational
figure behind most economic criminological theories was an
economic determinist.Karl Marx insisted that the economic
substructure determines the nature of all other institutions
and social relationships in society. In his view, the
emergence of capitalism produces economic inequality in
which the proletariats (workers) are exploited by the
bourgeoisie(owners or capitalist class.) The exploitation
creates poverty and also is at the root of the existence of
other social problems.Since Marxist criminologists draw
upon his economic and philosophic writings and apply them
to the crime issue.( As cited in. en.wikipedia.org.)

C. Willem Bonger- The foremost early Marxist criminologist

was the Dutch Philosopher Willem Bonger (1876-
1940)Whose most noted work was CRIMINALITY AND
ECONOMIC CONDITION (1969),Which first appeared in
1910. Bonger viewed the criminal law as primarily protecting
the interest of the propertied class. In contrast to
precapitalistics societies that emphasized egoism
(selfishness),Capitalism was viewed as precipitating crime
commission by competition as a sign of status. Bonger’s
work provides a very detailed literature review of a large
number of works of the time.which examined the impact of
economic conditions upon crime. A persistent theme since
early times. (As cited in onlinelibrary.wiley.com)

D.Charles Goring(1870-1919)-in 1913 published the

english convict,the results of a study begun in 1902 of 3,000
english convicts and comparison groups of college students,
hospital patients,and soldiers. He compared these
“criminals'' with non criminals” with respect to physical
characteristics,personal histories and mental qualities. The
only difference was that he was able to discover that
criminals were shorter and weighed less and most
importantly,were mentally defective.” While refuting
Lombroso’s Physical stigmata. A distinctive physical
criminal type,as a characteristic,he launched yet another
search for hereditary mental deficiency as the cause of
crime.(Siegel,2004)

E. Auguste Comte(1798-1857)- Is considered the founder

of positivist school and sociology. He applied scientific
methods in the study of society,from where he adopted the
word sociology. He wanted a society of methods and
research.He believed that large groups of people such as
society,being a subject of scientific study,can lead to the
discovery of specific laws that would greatly help them.

F.Adolphe Quetelet and Andre Michael Guerry- They

started what was called Cartographic School of criminology
in which they worked independently on the relation of crime
statistics to such factors as poverty,
age,sex,race,climate,and other demographic factors. Both
Scholars concluded that society,not the decisions of
individual offenders,was responsible for criminal behavior.
(As cited in en.wikipedia.org.wiki.adolphe_quetelet)

Another scholar who worked on the relationship of

crime and social factors was Gabriel Tarde. He was of the
opinion that society played an important role in creating
criminals. However,individual choice and chance were also
important to him. Tarde’s major contribution in the study of
the cause of crime was his concept of the criminal as a
professional type. He believed that most criminals went
through a process of training before finally becoming a
criminal. (As cited in www.britannica.com)

According to Emile Durkheim,crime is an inevitable

aspect of society.It could disappear only if all members of
society had the same values,and such standardization is
neither possible nor desirable.He called this concept
anomie (Greek,anomos,without norms) a breakdown of
social order as a result of a loss of standards and values.
 Durkheim has been regarded by many as the
FATHER OF MODERN SOCIOLOGY” because of his
perceptive insights into society. (From:
http://durkheim.itgo.com/anomie.html)

Lacassagne School

Alexandre Lacassagne (August 17, 1843 – September 24,

1924) was a French physician and criminologist who was a
native of Cahors. He was the founder of the Lacassagne
school of criminology, based in Lyon and influential from
1885 to 1914, and the main rival to Lombroso's Italian
school.He had a keen interest in sociology and psychology,
and the correlation of these disciplines to criminal and
"deviant" behaviour. He considered an individual's biological
predisposition and social environment to be important
factors in criminal behaviour.

Lacassagne was originally influenced by Lombroso, but

started opposing himself to the latter's theory of the "born
criminal," of a "criminal type" and to his insistence on
heredity. (As cited in en.wikipedia.org.)

G.Demonological Theory

Demonological or supernatural explanations of criminality

dominated thinking from early history to the eighteenth
century and still have modern remnants. In a system of
knowledge in which theological explanations of reality were
predominant,the criminal was viewed as a sinner who was
possessed by demons who are damned by otherworldly
forces. Mankind was viewed as at the mercy of the
supernatural: Fates,ghosts,furies,and/or spirits. Mankind
was viewed as manifestations of basically evil human nature
reflecting either with the price of darkness or an expression
of divine wrath. The Salem Witch Trials in Puritan England
and the Spanish Inquisition serve as an example of the
torture,burning at the stake, and other grim executions
awaiting heretics,witches and criminals. Such a worldview
perceived the violator's actions as deterministically-
controlled by forces beyond individual’s mastery.

Demonology is the study of demons or beliefs about

demons. They may be human, or nonhuman, separable
souls, or discarnate spirits which have never inhabited a
body.(as cited in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/demonology
Theories and causes
of crime
Introduction
There is no one ‘cause’ of crime. Crime is a highly
complex phenomenon that changes across cultures
and across time. Activities that are legal in one
country (e.g. alcohol consumption in the UK) are
sometimes illegal in others (e.g. strict Muslim
countries). As cultures change over time, behaviours
that once were not criminalised may become
criminalised (and then decriminalised again – e.g.
alcohol prohibition in the USA). As a result, there is no simple answer to the
question ‘what is crime?’ and therefore no single answer to ‘what causes crime?’
Different types of crime often have their own distinct causes. (For more about
definitions of crime see SCCJR What is Crime? You can also find out about specific
types of crime at: SCCJR Violence Against Women and Girls;
SCCJR Drug Crime; SCCJR Knife Crime)

This briefing provides an overview of some of the key criminological theories that
seek to explain the causes of crime; it is by no means an exhaustive list. Each of the
theories covered has its own strengths and weaknesses, has gaps and may only be
applicable to certain types of crime, and not others. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ theory.

The theories covered can be categorised into two main approaches:

1) Biological theories
2) Sociological theories

1) Biological theories

Biological explanations of crime assume that some people are ‘born criminals’, who are
physiologically distinct from non-criminals. The most famous proponent of this
approach is Cesare Lombroso.

Lombroso and Biological Positivism

 In the 19th Century, Italian prison psychiatrist Cesare Lombroso drew on the
ideas of Charles Darwin and suggested that criminals were atavistic:
essentially ‘evolutionary throwbacks’. He suggested that their brains were mal-
developed or not fully developed. In his review of prisoners, he found that they
shared a number of common physical attributes, such as sloping foreheads and
receding chins. In so doing, Lombroso suggested that involvement in crime was
a product of biology and biological characteristics:
criminals were born that way. Lombroso’s theory is essentially a theory of
biological positivism.

Lombroso’s work has long since fallen out of favour. However, biological theories have
continued to develop. Rather than measuring physical features of the body,
contemporary approaches focus on:

• Biochemical conditions (e.g. linked to Positivism: Influenced by the

poor diet or hormone imbalance)
• Neurophysiological conditions (e.g.
learning disabilities caused by brain
damage)
• Genetic inheritance and/or abnormality
• Intelligence
scientific discoveries of the 18th
and 19th centuries, positivism
is a research tradition that
seeks to establish objective
causes of individual behaviour.

These attempts, to locate the causes of crime within the individual, suggest that there
are identifiable differences between offenders and non-offenders. In other words, the
criminal is ‘other’: in some way different or abnormal to everyone else.

More information on Lombroso’s theories

More information on contemporary biological and biosocial approaches

2) Sociological theories

Sociological approaches suggest that crime is shaped by factors external to the

individual: their experiences within the neighbourhood, the peer group, and the family.

The Chicago School/Social Disorganisation Theory

 Social disorganisation theory grew out of research conducted by sociologists at the
University of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s. It key proponents were Clifford R.
Shaw and Henry D. McKay (1942), who used spatial mapping to examine the
residential locations of juveniles referred to court. Shaw and McKay found that
patterns of delinquency were higher in areas characterised by poor housing, poor
health, socio-economic disadvantage and transient populations. This led them to
suggest that crime was a function of neighbourhood dynamics and not due to
individual actors and their actions.

Shaw and McKay explained these patterns by reference to the problems that
accompanied immigration to Chicago at this time. They claimed that areas settled by
newly arrived immigrants experienced a breakdown of social norms due to ethnic
diversity and competing cultural traditions. Conventional institutions of social control
were therefore weakened and unable to regulate the behaviour of local youths.

Contemporary theories of crime, place and space include:

• defensible space theory, which examines how the design of physical space is
related to crime;
• broken windows theory, which looks the relationship between low level disorder
and crime; and
• routine activities theory, which considers how opportunities to commit crime are
shaped by between people’s everyday movements through space and time.

More information on the Chicago School/Social Disorganisation Theory More

information on contemporary theories of crime, place and space

Anomie/Strain Theory

Anomie is a concept developed by one of the founding fathers of sociology, Emile

Durkheim, to explain the breakdown of social norms that often accompanies rapid
social change. American sociologist Robert Merton (1957) drew on this idea to
explain criminality and deviance in the USA. His theory argues that crime occurs
when there is a gap between the cultural goals of a society (e.g. material wealth,
status) and the structural means to achieve these (e.g. education, employment).
 This strain between means and goals results in frustration and resentment, and
encourages some people to use illegitimate or illegal means to secure success.

In short, strain theory posits that the cultural values and social structures of society
put pressure on individual citizens to commit crime.

Jock Young draws on Merton’s anomie/strain theory in his recent book, The Exclusive
Society (1999), locating crime in relation to both structural and cultural processes.
Structurally speaking, Young argues that the dismantling of the welfare state, alongside
increasing disparities between the rich and the poor, have served to further exclude
disadvantaged groups. This has occurred alongside high levels of cultural inclusion.
Contemporary consumer capitalism places greater emphasis on conspicuous
consumption and material success, intensifying feelings of deprivation experienced by
the less successful. (See section on ‘Relative deprivation’, below).

More information on strain theories

More information on the work of Jock Young

Subcultural Theory

Linked to anomie and strain are concepts of status frustration and differential
opportunity, which North American subcultural theorists used to explain the delinquent
activities of disadvantaged groups in the 1950s and 60s.

Status frustration is associated with the work of Albert Cohen (1955), who conducted
research into group offending by young, lower-class men. Cohen argued that lower-
class youths could not aspire to middle-class cultural goals and so, frustrated, they
rejected them to create their own subcultural system of values. In school, for example,
they gain status and respect by meeting the expectations of peers not teachers,
engaging in delinquent activities such as smoking, truanting, and acting up in class.

Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin (1960) built on these ideas, pointing to the
differential opportunity structures available to lower-class young people in different
neighbourhoods: criminal (making a living from crime), conflict (territorial violence and
gang fighting) and retreatist (drugs and alcohol).
Researchers at the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research draw on some of
these ideas in their research on young people and ‘gangs’. See, for example, Susan
Batchelor’s research on girls and violence, which emphasises the gendered meaning
of respect in street-orientated youth groups, or Alistair Fraser’s work on territorial gang
identity amongst young men in Glasgow.

More information on North American subcultural theory

Social Control Theory

Strictly speaking control theory does not address the causes of crime, but
rather focuses on why people obey the law. In other words, it explains
conformity rather than deviance.

It is primarily associated with the work of Travis Hirschi (1969), an America

social scientist who proposed that people general conform to social norms due
to strong social bonds. Conversely, they engage in delinquent acts when these
bonds are broken or weak. The key components of social bonds are:
• Attachment: How strong or weak is an individual’s relationship with
others? Do these others expect certain kinds of behaviour (such as
obeying the law) from this individual? The stronger the attachment and
the stronger the expectations, the more likely it is that the individual will
conform.
• Commitment: The more an individual commits his/herself to a particular
lifestyle (for example, being married, being a parent, having a job), the
more he/she has to lose if he/she becomes involved in crime (and so
deviate from the lifestyle).
• Involvement: This component comes down to time – the more time the
individual spends engaging in law abiding behaviour, the less time
he/she has to engage in law breaking behaviour.
• Belief: this relates to upbringing. If an individual has been brought up to
be law abiding, they are less likely to become involved in crime.

Control theory is one of the most frequently used and tested criminological theories.
More information on Hirschi’s theory of social bonds

Right Realism/Rational Choice Theory

This branch of criminology sees individuals as rational actors: individuals are

capable of making their own choices, which includes choosing to commit crime. In
any course of action, individuals weigh up the likely benefits and disadvantages of
each action.

Right realism emerged in the USA and the UK around the 1980s, in response to
rising crime rates and a perceived failure of sociological approaches to adequately
address the real causes of crime. Prominent right realists such as James Q.
Wilson (1975) and Charles Murray (1990) come from political backgrounds and
claim that criminological theory should inform criminal justice policy.

One of the key theories to emerge from this branch of criminology is rational choice
theory, associated with the work of Cornish and Clarke (1986). According to this
theory, individuals not only decide to commit crime, but decide when and where to
commit crime.

As Walklate observes, this theory lends itself to the range of policy initiatives known as
situational crime prevention, sometimes referred to as designing out crime. This is the
umbrella term for a range of strategies that are used to reduce the opportunities to
commit crime.

Examples of this strategy include:

Realism: Realist criminology
• Increasing formal surveillance measures
tends to be written from a
such as CCTV and alarms, and the
particular ideological position,
Neighbourhood Watch scheme
i.e. it is politically right or left.
• Increasing natural surveillance such as
Both approaches attempt to get
improving street lighting
‘real’ about the problem of
• Concealing or removing ‘targets’ e.g. ‘high
crime: treating it as a serious
value’ goods such as mobile phones, cash
social issue.
and jewellery
In the 2014 Scottish Government report, ‘What works to reduce crime?’, Part 3
considers situational crime prevention and includes measures such as those as
described above. However, it also includes ‘approaches that extend beyond the
“situation”’ which involve restricting access to weapons and alcohol and investing in
diversionary activities (such as engagement in sport) to encourage people to engage in
pro social, rather than anti-social, activities (such as crime).

More information on rational choice theory

Left Realism/Relative Deprivation

Left realism is a branch of critical criminology (see SCCJR What is crime?) that
developed in the UK and the USA in the 1980s. It suggests that crime
disproportionately affects the lives of the poor and disadvantaged. Key proponents
include Lea and Young (1984) and Elliot Currie (1985).

One of the key concepts of left realism is relative deprivation. Closely associated
with anomie theory, relative deprivation suggests that crime happens when
individuals or groups see themselves as being unfairly disadvantaged compared
to other individuals or groups who they see as being
similar to themselves. Since the disadvantage is perceived and determined by an
individual, it is a subjective assessment.

Left realists also support two other key theories to explain crime:

• Marginalisation: some groups experience marginalisation and at different levels

(social, political and economic). These groups are on the periphery of society.
Lacking political representation, these groups represent themselves and their
ways of taking political action include the commission of crime and violence.
• Sub-cultures: marginalised individuals and groups may come into contact with
others who share these experiences, and who then may form their own sub
cultures in which crime and violence may feature.

More information on ‘Left Realism’ Criminology

 Feminist Perspectives/Gender

Feminist perspectives share a concern with gender inequality, pointing to the fact that
crime is disproportionately committed by men. Feminist criminologists such as
Elizabeth Stanko (1985) have paid particular attention to male violence against
women, explaining its occurrence by reference to wider structures of oppression – as
well as gendered norms regarding ‘appropriate’ masculine and feminine behaviour.

One concept used by feminist perspectives to explain the maleness of crime is

hegemonic masculinity: the set of ideas, values, representations and practices
associated with ‘being male’ which is commonly accepted as the dominant position in
gender relations in a society at a particular historical moment (Jefferson, 2006, Sage
Dictionary of Criminology). In contemporary Western society, the dominant or
hegemonic masculinity is expressed through paid employment (perhaps being the
‘bread winner’ in the household); being heterosexual; and subordinating women.
Criminologist James W.
Messerschmidt (1993) argues that for some men, in certain groups, men do
masculinity (that is, express their masculinity) through the engagement and
commission of crime.

Various researchers in SCCJR draw on feminist perspectives in their work, especially

in relation to research relating to domestic and sexual violence (see SCCJR Violence
Against Women and Girls).

More information on feminist perspectives in criminology

Relative Deprivation Theory Definition
As defined by social theorists and political scientists, relative deprivation theory
suggests that people who feel they are being deprived of something considered
essential in their society (e.g. money, rights, political voice, status) will organize
or join social movements dedicated to obtaining the things of which they feel
deprived. For example, relative deprivation has been cited as one of the causes of
the U.S. Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, which was rooted in Black
Americans' struggle to gain social and legal equality with white Americans.
Similarly, many gay people joined the same-sex marriage movement in order to
acquire the same legal recognition of their marriages enjoyed by straight people.

In some cases, relative deprivation has been cited as a factor driving incidents of
social disorder like rioting, looting, terrorism, and civil wars. In this nature, social
movements and their associated disorderly acts can often be attributed to the
grievances of people who feel they are being denied resources to which they are
entitled.

Relative Deprivation Theory History

Development of the concept of relative deprivation is often attributed to
American sociologist Robert K. Merton, whose study of American soldiers during
World War II revealed that soldiers in the Military Police were far less satisfied
with their opportunities for promotion than regular GIs.

In proposing one the first formal definitions of relative deprivation, British

statesman and sociologist Walter Runciman listed four required conditions:

• A person does not have something.

• That person knows other people who have the thing.
• That person wants to have the thing.
• That person believes they have a reasonable chance of getting the thing.

Runciman also drew a distinction between “egoistic” and “fraternalistic” relative

deprivation. According to Runciman, egoistic relative deprivation is driven by
an individual’s feelings of being treated unfairly compared to others in their
group. For example, an employee who feels they should have gotten a promotion
that went to another employee may feel egoistically relatively deprived.
Fraternalistic relative deprivation is more often associated with massive group
social movements like the Civil Rights Movement.

Another more common example of fraternal deprivation is the feeling of envy felt
by middle-class individuals when they see people on television portrayed as being
middle-class driving luxury cars and wearing designed clothes. According to
Runciman, fraternal deprivation also affects voting behavior, especially when
appealing to extreme right-wing political candidates or movements.

Another viewpoint on relative deprivation was developed by American author

and professor of political science Ted Robert Gurr. In his 1970 book Why Men
Rebel, Gurr explains the link between relative deprivation and political violence.
Gurr examines the probability that the frustration-aggression mechanism,
triggered by feelings of relative deprivation, is the primary source of the human
capacity for violence. While such frustration does not always result in violence,
Gurr contends that the longer individuals or groups are subjected to relative
deprivation the more likely it is that their frustration will lead to anger and
ultimately violence.

Relative Versus Absolute Deprivation

Relative deprivation has a counterpart: absolute deprivation. Both of these are
measures of poverty in a given country.

Absolute deprivation describes a condition in which household income falls

below a level needed to maintain the basic necessities of life, such as food and
shelter.

Meanwhile, relative deprivation describes a level of poverty at which household

income drops to a certain percentage below the country’s median income. For
example, a country’s level of relative poverty could be set at 50 percent of its
median income.

Absolute poverty can threaten one’s very survival, while relative poverty may not
but is likely to limit one’s ability to participate fully in their society. In 2015,
the World Bank Group set the worldwide absolute poverty level at $1.90 per day
per person based on purchasing power parities (PPP) rates.