There are numerous hypotheses as to why people commit crimes.

Some may
think that committing a crime is rational, with the offender considering the
benefits and drawbacks of doing so before the criminal activity. Others may
hold the opinion that criminals are inherently different from law-abiding
people in terms of biology or psychology.

However, the one thing these two theories have in common is that they both
emphasize the role of the criminal. In other words, they view crime as an
individual issue rather than one that affects the entire community.

Sociology, on the other hand, argues that society shapes the circumstances in
which criminal activity occurs. Put differently, society influences people to
commit crimes. Let's explore what sociological theories of crime are, and
what they address.

Sociological theories of crime: meaning,

causation and prevention
Before considering causation and prevention discussed by sociological
theories of crime, the definition of such theories is as follows:

Sociological theories of crime try to interpret crime through societal

conditions and explain deviant or criminal behaviour through
the circumstances in which they occur.
As we have mentioned above, sociologists suggest that societal conditions
trigger individuals to commit crime, thus proposing that criminal behaviour is
not natural. It is not innate to humans but rather circumstantial.

Theories of crime in sociology attempt to explain both the causation of crime

and how it can/should be prevented.
Marxist theories on crime
Marxists generally agree on the fact that most crime can be prevented by
dismantling capitalist structures but disagree on the origins of crime. Let's
look at the perspectives of traditional Marxists and neo-Marxists.

Traditional Marxism on crime

Marxists believe that capitalism is ‘criminogenic’, i.e. that it creates crime,
and that although all social classes break the law, the criminal activities of the
elite are what cause the most harm.

They emphasise the class structure in explaining crime – the ruling class are
the lawmakers and benefit from the laws, as they are less likely to get caught
or punished for the crimes they commit. Conversely, the working classes
commit crimes due to the ‘dog-eat-dog’ values of the capitalist structure,
such as greed, selfishness and materialism. They are punished and portrayed
as criminals.
Traditional Marxists also argue that law enforcement works in favour of the
ruling class in society by performing ideological functions. It
reflects bourgeois ideology, such as protecting wealth and property over
workers' rights. Snider (1993) argues that agencies of the criminal justice
system, such as the police and court systems, control the masses by keeping
them in a state of false consciousness - establishing ineffectual labour laws
to obscure the reality of exploitation and preventing revolt.

Neo-Marxism on crime
Unlike classical Marxists, Neo-Marxists believe that crime is an after-
effect of capitalism, not caused by capitalism. Theorists such as Taylor,
Walton and Young (1973) believe that not all working-class criminals are
forced to break the law; rather, some of them actively choose to do so.
However, they argue that moral panics over comparatively minor crimes
committed by the working class make the audiences side with the ruling
class against the marginalised. This helps in maintaining the capitalist social
order. Neo-Marxists also argue that crime can sometimes be positive,
particularly if committed by the working class or marginalised groups as a
way to rebel against their conditions.

Neo-Marxists propose that criminology should remain focused on pointing

out the injustices of the capitalist structure in order to create positive change
in society.

Realist theories on crime

Sociological realist theories on crime originated as a response to the
increased rates of victimisation of disadvantaged groups, which also often
went unreported.

Since previous conceptions of crime tended to neglect the victim, the birth of
right realism and left realism was a reaction to this. Its supporters suggest
taking practical steps to avoid crime, which they view as a highly significant
societal issue.

Left realism on crime

Left realists believe that social inequality is the prime reason for crime, and
that community interventions can reduce crime. Left realists tend to focus
on working-class crime, arguing that other theories such as Marxism focus
too much on crimes by the rich. Theorists such as Lea and Young (1986)
assert that one should work with the system to improve the lives of the
victims, who are also mostly from working-class backgrounds.

In the opinion of left realists, marginalisation, relative deprivation, and the

influence of subcultures are the prime reasons for criminal activities. Left
realists argue that crime can be controlled by:
  bringing different agencies in the community together
 policing
 understanding why people commit crimes
 tackling poverty and marginalisation

Right realism on crime

Contrary to left realists, right realists believe that poverty and deprivation are
not to be blamed, instead holding individuals responsible for crimes. Their
theory is predicated on the premise that when people's behaviour
goes unchecked, they engage in criminal behaviour. They argue that this
happens when individuals, particularly young men, have weak social bonds
(as explored above in Hirschi's social control theory), or when children are
born out of wedlock and insufficiently socialised by low-income, lone-
mother families (according to Murray (1996)).

Right realists do agree that increased levels of ‘social disorder’ are related to
the weakening of the agents of social control. However, they state that tough
measures are to be taken to reduce crime, such as zero-tolerance policing or
punishing childbirth out of wedlock.

Institutional anomie theory. Steven Messner and Richard

Rosenfeld's institutional anomie theory draws on control and
social learning theories to explain the high crime rate in
the United States. According to the theory, the high crime rate
partly stems from the emphasis placed on the "American
Dream." Everyone is encouraged to strive for monetary
success, but little emphasis is placed on the legitimate means
to achieve such success: "it's not how you play the game; it's
whether you win or lose." As a consequence, many attempt to
obtain money through illegitimate channels or crime. Further,
the emphasis on monetary success is paralleled by the
dominance of economic institutions in the United States. Other
major institutions—the family, school, and the political system—
are subservient to economic institutions. Noneconomic
functions and roles (e.g., parent, teacher) are devalued and
receive little support. Noneconomic institutions must
accommodate themselves to the demands of the economy
(e.g., parents neglect their children because of the demands of
work). And economic norms have come to penetrate these
other institutions (e.g., the school system, like the economic
system, is based on the individualized competition for rewards).
As a result, institutions like the family, school, and political
system are less able to effectively socialize individuals against
crime and sanction deviant behavior.
Feminist theories. Feminist theories focus on gender
differences in power as a source of crime. These theories
address two issues: why are males more involved in most forms
of crime than females, and why do females engage in crime.
Most theories of crime were developed with males in mind;
feminists argue that the causes of female crime differ somewhat
from the causes of male crime.
Gender differences in crime are said to be due largely to gender
differences in social learning and control. Females are
socialized to be passive, subservient, and focused on the needs
of others. Further, females are more closely supervised than
males, partly because fathers and husbands desire to protect
their "property" from other males. Related to this, females are
more closely tied to the household and to child-rearing tasks,
which limits their opportunities to engage in many crimes.
Some females, of course, do engage in crime. Feminist theories
argue that the causes of their crime differ somewhat from those
of male crime, although female crime is largely explained in
terms of strain theory. Meda Chesney-Lind and others argue
that much female crime stems from the fact that juvenile
females are often sexually abused by family members. This
high rate of sexual abuse is fostered by the power of males over
females, the sexualization of females—especially young
females—and a system that often fails to sanction sexual
abuse. Abused females frequently run away, but they have
difficulty surviving on the street. They are labeled as
delinquents, making it difficult for them to obtain legitimate work.
Juvenile justice officials, in fact, often arrest such females and
return them to the families where they were abused. Further,
these females are frequently abused and exploited by men on
the street. As a consequence, they often turn to crimes like
prostitution and theft to survive. Theorists have pointed to still
other types of strain to explain female crime, like the financial
and other difficulties experienced by women trying to raise
families without financial support from fathers. The rapid
increase in female-headed families in recent decades, in fact,
has been used to explain the increase in rates of female
property crime. It is also argued that some female crime stems
from frustration over the constricted roles available to females in
our society.
There are other versions of critical theory, including
"postmodernist" theories of crime. A good overview can be
found in the text by George Vold, Thomas J. Bernard, and
Jeffrey B. Snipes

Subcultural theory of crime

This perspective explains crime and deviance as an aspect of certain
subcultures and mainly focuses on crimes specific to the working class. It
argues that deviance is the outcome of individuals who experience status
frustration.

Status frustration, a concept created by A. Cohen (1955), describes the

feelings of individuals who desire social status but who lack the opportunities
or means to succeed, which causes a feeling of inadequacy and personal
failure.
As a result, these people, who feel excluded from mainstream culture, end up
joining subcultures, which have their own rules and ways of attaining high
status (often related to deviant acts). They are subsequently rewarded for
being deviant and are given the recognition they never received from wider
society.

Subcultural theorists, in contrast to social control theorists, highlight the peer

group that encourages individuals to commit crimes. The theory also explains
non-utilitarian crimes such as vandalism as a response to marginalisation.