The causation of crime and deviance in society is one of the most debated topics in

criminology. Over the years, numerous theories have been put forward to try and explain why

some people are more likely to engage in crime than others. Three such theories are Sheldon's

theory of somatotypes, The Chicago School or the Social Disorganization Theory, and the

Labelling theory. Like other theories of crime, these three theories have varied strengths and

weaknesses that undermine their ability to explain crime and deviance in society holistically.

Sheldon's Theory of Somatotypes

The theory of somatotypes adopts a biological perspective of crime that assumes that

some people are "born criminals." The Somatotypes theory stems from the work of William

Sheldon, who studied the relationship between human physique and criminality. Sheldon, in

his study, observed three distinct body types; endomorphs, mesomorphs, and ectomorphs

(Lainer). He argued that each body type had a different personality that favored certain

criminal activities. According to Sheldon's theory, the endomorphs, who are people of

medium height with soft bodies and thick necks, were more likely to be mentally ill, inclined

to delinquency, and occasional fraud. The mesomorphs, muscular, strong boned people with

broad shoulders, were more likely to engage in habitual violence, robbery, and even homicide

(Lainer). On the other hand, the ectomorphs, characterized by thin frames, large brains, and

well-developed nervous systems, were more likely to commit suicide or become occasional

thieves. Sheldon's study concluded that delinquents were more likely to be mesomorphs,

supporting the biological notion that some people are born criminals.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Over the years, Sheldon's Somatotype theory has come under intense scrutiny from

various scholars who have highlighted its strengths and weakness. The main strength of

Sheldon's biological approach is that it was empirically proved. Glueck and Glueck replicated
Sheldon's theory using a control group of 200 college students and found that mesomorphs

were more likely to commit crimes than people of other body types (Bernburg).

On the other hand, critiques of Sheldon's theory have argued that the Somatotype

model is only based on male body types. Thus, it cannot be used to explain the crime patterns

in society as it excludes women who also commit crimes. The second weakness of Sheldon's

theory is that it does not consider the idea that body types can be developed or changed over

time (Bernburg). For instance, ectomorphs and endomorphs can become mesomorphs

through training and exercise. Additionally, there have been numerous criminals with

endomorph and ectomorph body types, which contradicts Sheldon's theory that only

mesomorphs can engage in crime.

The Chicago School or the Social Disorganization Theory

The Chicago School or the social disorganization theory adopts a sociological

perspective of crime that argues external environmental factors rather than biological factors

are responsible for shaping crime. According to the Chicago School, patterns of delinquency

tend to be higher in areas characterized by socioeconomic disadvantage. Shaw and McKay,

who developed this theory, posit crimes are more likely to occur in socially disorganized

areas since such places often have weak levels of community surveillance and several

competing and conflicting moral values (Blomberg). Areas with such sociological

disorganization are thus unable to regulate the behaviors of local youth, which leads to high

rates of deviance and delinquency.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Like the Somatotype theory, the social disorganization theory has been studied by

numerous scholars who have identified several strengths and weaknesses of the model. The
first strength of the social disorganization theory is that it is grounded on empiricism

(Blomberg). Shaw and McKay carried out empirical studies of the juveniles referred to the

Chicago courts. They found that crime was unevenly distributed within the city, with high

rates of crimes being reported in low-income areas with weak traditional social bonds. The

second strength of the social disorganization theory is that it gives people a better

understanding of why certain areas are more prone to crime than others. According to Shaw

and McKay, disorganized societies often lack internal policing or regulation that acts as the

checks and balances against the deviant behavior of its members (Blomberg). Additionally,

the social disorganization theory can accurately predict street-level crime. Several studies

based on social disorganization have accurately projected crime rates in different areas.

The social disorganization theory also has several weaknesses which undermine its

ability to explain crime and deviance. The first shortcoming of this theory is that it cannot

explain white-collar crimes or organized crime rackets that are not rooted in any

neighborhood. The social disorganization theory only focuses on blue-collar crimes that

occur in unstructured societies and offers no insight into white-collar crimes carried out by

people in the corporate world. Another weakness of the social disorganization theory is that it

does not explain the reasons why crimes occur in socially organized areas.

Labeling theory

Labeling theory stems from the works of Howard Becker and Edwin Lemert, who

posited that society creates deviance by overreacting to minor rule-breaking. Unlike social

disorganization, the labeling theory focuses on how people's opinions can influence the way

individuals think about themselves. According to the labeling theory, crime is a social

construct, and no act or behavior is criminal; it is the way society classifies the behavior that

determines if it's a crime (Sahni and Akshaya). Society, especially the people tasked with
enforcing standards of normalcy, are the ones who determine the behavior to be labeled

criminal. The deviant is, thus, a product of the labeling process, where a person gets the label

of a criminal and subsequently begins acting as one due to the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Lemert argues that the labeling process can stigmatize people, which can, in turn, transform

fragile social identities into criminal careers.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The labeling theory, like other theories, has numerous strengths and weaknesses. The

first strength of the labeling theory is that it highlights the discriminatory way society

enforces laws. Laws governing society are often formulated by the rich and powerful, who

frame rules that favor their behavior while labeling behaviors they dislike as deviant (Sahni

and Akshaya). The labeling theory also allows us to better understand why crime is a social

construct. Additionally, labeling theory helps us understand why people with criminal labels

tend to behave the way they do.

The labeling theory also has several shortcomings which undermine its ability to

effectively crime. Firstly, there is no empirical proof that labeling increases deviance. Over

the years, studies based on the labeling theory have produced mixed and inconclusive results.

Some show a positive correlation between labeling and deviance, while others show a

negative relationship, and others have concluded there is no correlation (Sahni and Akshaya).

Secondly, labeling theory does not explain why people engage in primary deviance or why

some people engage more than others. Another weakness of the labeling theory is that it

portrays offenders as victims of society and does not consider the actual victims of crime.

Conclusion
 In conclusion, it is clear that the three theories of crime presented in the discussion

share numerous differences and similarities. Sheldon's theory relies on the biological

explanation of crime, while the social disorganization and labeling theory views crime from a

sociological perspective. Even though social disorganization and labeling theories are both

sociological theories of crime, they tend to perceive crime causation differently. On the one

hand, the social disorganization theory argues that crimes are more likely to occur in areas

with weak levels of community surveillance that cannot regulate the behaviors of deviance

and delinquency. On the other hand, the labeling theory argues that some people often resort

to criminal behavior due to labeling, potentially transforming their social identities into

deviant characters.

Works Cited

Bernburg, Jón G. "Labeling Theory." Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research, 2019,

pp. 179-196.

Blomberg, Thomas G. "Making a difference in criminology: Past, present, and future."

American Journal of Criminal Justice 44, no. 4 (2019): 670-688.

Lanier, M. M. Essential criminology. Routledge, 2018.

Sahni, Sanjeev P., and Akshaya Krishnakumar. "Theoretical Approaches to Understanding

Criminal Behaviour." Criminal Psychology and the Criminal Justice System in India

and Beyond. Springer, Singapore, 2021. 31-49.