Introduction

In order to deal with the aspect of the Schools in Criminology it is essential to understand the
concept of Criminology which is in itself a body of knowledge which regards crime as a
social phenomenon and the study of the causation of crime. During the 18th and the 19th
century the Schools of Criminology gained popularity1. The four major schools of
criminology are the pre- classical school, the classical school, the neo-classical school and the
positivist school. All the aforementioned schools of criminology defined the aspect of
criminology in their own terms according to their beliefs, customs, knowledge and the
prevalent time period2.

Criminology is dated back to the period of Greek philosophers such as Hippocrates, Socrates,
Plato and Aristotle. These philosophers described the crime of the criminal to a corrupted
soul deriving from physical deformities in his body. The history of primitive societies and
early medieval period reveals that human intellectual in those days was predominated by
religion and superstitions therefore such beliefs dominated law and therefore, legal recourse
was considered as the last resort. This implies that the mental aspect and the circumstances
because of which such a crime was committed was ignored. Therefore, in the absence of a
fair and equitable judiciary the criminal administration allotted punishments which were
often arbitrary and irrational in nature. Thereafter, with the change in human thinking and
evolution of modern society, the social reformers diverted their attention in order to develop a
robust criminal justice system. In order to achieve such a goal, the emergency of criminology
as a separate branch of knowledge by way of the different schools was evolved.

However, over time the focus was pre-dominantly upon the reason for the causation of crime
and the mental aspect which is till today taken into consideration while granting punishments
by the court of law.

Pre-classical School
The pre-classical school is commonly known as the demonological school for the sole reason
that during the 17th century, the demonological theory flourished in Europe with the
dominance of the church and religion. Since during this time, the scientific explanation was
not given preference and, concept of crime was vague and based on superstitions and myths.

Hence, the explanations for criminal behaviour were sought through spirits, demons and
unknown power. The principle behind such a concept was that a man commits a crime due to
the stimulus of some external force or an evil spirit which is beyond the control and
understanding of man and that he was possessed by such a spirit. The wrath of God and the
natural agencies were considered to give punishment to the offenders. The offenders were
subjected and had to go through battles, pelting of stones and was believed that no harm
would be caused if the offender was innocent which was termed as the Ordeal test and was a
method of torturing or subjecting the offender to severe torture to determine whether or not
such an offender was guilty of the offence which he was charged with. The justification
advanced for these rituals was the familiar belief that "when the human agency fails, recourse
to divine means of proof becomes most! inevitable". However, such practices were the most
irrational according to the modern mind, they were universally accepted3.
This demonological theory of criminality or the pre-classical was based upon the
omnipotence of spirit, which they regarded as a divine and superior power. The offender was
made victim to the worships, sacrifices and ordeals by water and fire which were usually
prescribed to determine the guilt of the offender. However, as the times developed people
started analysing and questioning the demonological theory which led to the scientific
development and therefore, led to the formation of the classical school of criminology.

Key Concepts

Dharma: The concept of dharma is central to the Pre-Classical School of criminology. It

refers to the moral and ethical duties that individuals have towards society and highlights the
importance of adhering to social norms and customs.

Karma: The concept of karma emphasises the belief in the consequences of one’s actions,
both in the present life and in future lives. It underscores the idea of accountability and the
notion that individuals are responsible for their actions and their consequences.

Relevant Provisions

Manusmriti: Manusmriti, an ancient Indian text, is considered one of the important sources of
principles of justice and punishment in the Pre-Classical School of criminology. It contains
provisions related to social norms, customs, and punishments for various crimes, reflecting
the emphasis on dharma and karma.

Contribution

The Pre-Classical School of Criminology has contributed to the understanding of crime and
punishment in ancient Indian society. It highlights the significance of social norms, customs,
and ethical responsibilities in maintaining law and order.

While not directly influencing contemporary criminology in India, the concepts of dharma
and karma continue to shape cultural and religious beliefs related to crime and justice.

Classical School
The pioneers and the scholars of the classical school of criminology are Cesare Beccaria,
Jeremy Bentham and Romilly. The main belief of this school is that all men are self-seeking
and therefore they attempt to commit the offence on account of the free will and not on
account of being possessed by an evil spirit. According to the theory of this school, men
possess free will and therefore, act as per their pleasure and in order to cause pain (hedonism)
to the victim. The theory devised by the pre-classical school was rejected.

Beccaria, a renowned criminologist proposed that, the punishment of a crime that is decided
should be proportionate and in accordance with its seriousness. This thought was based on
the simple reason that torture was inappropriate and thus allowed the weak to incriminate and
the strong would be found innocent before the adjudication because of social position. The
ideology of Beccaria was supported by various criminologists that emphasises upon the
3 The Early Schools of Criminology and Modern Counterparts

criminal rather than the crime. The classical school focuses on the principle of deterrence
instead of the retributive theory4.

The major drawback of the classical school was that it was based upon an abstract
presumption of free will and relied solely on the act (i.e., the crime) without devoting any
attention to the state of mind of the criminal or on the criminal. Another shortcoming of this
school was that they prescribed equal punishments for same offence and created no
distinction between first offenders and habitual criminals irrespective of the gravity of the
offence. However, the greatest achievement of this school of criminology lies in the fact that
it recognized and suggested for the development of a substantial and robust criminal policy
which would overcome the barrier of allotting arbitrary punishments. Due to the theory
devolved by Beccaria the earlier concepts of crime and criminals which were based on
religious beliefs and myths were denounced and therefore, the emphasis was upon the
criminal rather than the crime which eventually led to the need for concentrating on the
personality of an offender in determine the causation of crime.

Key Concepts

Rationality: The classical school believes that individuals are rational beings who make
choices based on their self-interests. They weigh the benefits and costs of committing a crime
before making a decision.

Hedonism: The classical school assumes that individuals are motivated by the pursuit of
pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Therefore, they commit crimes when they perceive the
benefits of the crime to outweigh the costs.

Punishment: The classical school emphasises the importance of punishment as a deterrent to

crime. It argues that the certainty, severity, and swiftness of punishment can deter individuals
from committing crimes.

Relevant Provisions

Indian Penal Code (IPC): The IPC, which is the main criminal law statute in India, reflects
the classical school’s principles of deterrence through punishment. It prescribes specific
punishments for various crimes, with the aim of deterring individuals from committing those
crimes.

Contribution

The classical school of criminology has influenced the development of criminal law and the
criminal justice system in India. The principles of deterrence through punishment are
reflected in the Indian Penal Code, which serves as the basis for the criminal justice system in
the country.

Neo-classical School
The 'free will' theory developed by the classical school did not survive for too long because
of ignoring the individual differences under certain situations and treating first offenders and
the habitual alike irrespective of the crime committed. The neo-classists asserted that certain
categories of offenders such as minors, idiots, insane or incompetent had cannot be treated
equally as a prudent man in matters of punishment irrespective of the similarity of their
criminal act because these persons were incapable of understanding the nature or the conduct
of the act committed. The Neo-classical school was greatly appreciated because of evolution
of the theory of differentiating the aforementioned categories from the other criminals on the
basis of their mental depravity was indeed a progressive step.

Thus, it would be seen that the main contribution of neo-classical school of criminology lies
in the fact that the theory of classical school and suggested that an individual might commit
criminal acts due to certain justifying circumstances and such situations must be taken under
consideration while discharging the criminal liability. Therefore, along with the criminal act,
the other factors such as the, the personality of the criminal, the motives, previous life,
history, general character, etc., should not be lost while assessing his guilt. Today’s jury
system has inculcated the approach of the Neo-classists by granting leniency to the
aforementioned classes. As to the shortcomings of neo-classical school of criminology, it
believed that criminals are a nuisance to the society and therefore, must be expelled.

Key Concepts

Integrative Approach: The Neo-Classical School advocates for an integrative approach that
combines the concepts of free will and determinism. It acknowledges that individuals have
the capacity for free will, but they are also influenced by various biological, psychological,
and social factors that may limit their choices.

Mitigating Circumstances: The Neo-Classical School recognises the importance of

considering mitigating circumstances, such as mental capacity, duress, provocation, and other
factors that may affect an individual’s culpability for a crime.

Relevant Provisions

The Neo-Classical School has influenced the development of sentencing guidelines in some
jurisdictions, which take into consideration both the severity of the offence and the individual
circumstances of the offender, such as their criminal history, motivation, and potential for
rehabilitation.

Contribution

The Neo-Classical School of Criminology has contributed to the recognition of the complex
interplay between individual agency and social context in shaping criminal behaviour. It
promotes a balanced and holistic approach that considers both free will and determinism, and
advocates for the consideration of mitigating circumstances in the criminal justice system.

However, the Neo-Classical School has also been criticised for its potential for subjectivity
and inconsistency in determining mitigating circumstances and evaluating an individual’s
culpability for a crime.

Positivist School
The earlier schools focussed on the crime rather than the criminal therefore, this school was
the beginning of a new era wherein the focus was on the criminal and the various reasons
leading to the causation of crime. The real cause of criminality lay in anthropological features
of the criminal which helps in demonstrating the functioning of brain in order to establish a
co- relationship between criminality and the structure and functioning of brain. The main
exponents of this school were three eminent Italian criminologists, namely, Cesare
Lombroso, Raffaele Garofalo and Enrico Terri and therefore, it is known as the Italian School
of Criminology.

Lombroso conducted an intensive study of the physical characteristics of his patients and
later on of criminals, and he came to a definite conclusion that criminals were physically
inferior because of which they developed a tendency for inferior acts. Lombroso’s theory
devised that there were 3 kinds of criminals: a) The Atavists or hereditary criminals. —
Lombroso also termed them as born criminals. In his opinion born-criminals could not refrain
from committing crimes because they aspect of criminality was hereditary in nature and he
termed such a class at the Atavists. He, therefore, considered these criminals beyond
reformation. Insane Criminals. —The second category of criminals according to Lombroso
consisted of insane criminals who are unable to understand the nature and conduct of their act
on account of mental depravity or disorder. (iii) Criminoids. —Lombroso devised the third
category of criminals which were deemed as criminoids who had devised a physical criminal
type and had a tendency to commit crime in order to overcome their inferiority complex in
order to survive in the society. Even though, Lombroso’s theory was not accepted in the
earlier centuries but was widely appreciated however, with the focus being shifted upon the
criminal rather than the crime, the Atavist theory of Lombroso was rejected upon the sole
reason that no criminal is beyond reformation5.

The major contribution of Ferri to the field of criminology is his theory of "Law of Criminal
Saturation". This theory presupposes that the crime is basically the produce of three main

factors: — (1) Physical or geographical; (2) Anthropological; and (3) Psychological or social.
Thus, Ferri emphasised that criminal behaviour is an outcome of a variety of factors which
have effect upon such an offender and instigate him to commit a certain offence. According
to him social change, which is inevitable in a dynamic society; results in disharmony, conflict
and cultural variations but change cannot be avoided. Ferri classified the criminals into 5
types mainly: (1) born criminals; (2) occasional criminals; (3) passionate criminals; (4) insane
criminals; and (5) habitual criminals. He suggested an intensive programme of crime
prevention and recommended a series of measures for treatment of offenders and therefore,
believed in the rehabilitation and reformation of the criminal6.

Raffaele Garofalo was one of the three main exponents of positive school of criminology, he
emphasised that lack of pity generates crimes against person while lack of probity leads to
crimes against property. He placed criminals mainly into four categories, namely: (1)
murderers (2) violent criminals who are affected by environmental influences such as
prejudices of honour, politics and religion; (3) criminals lacking in sentiment of probity; and

(4) lascivious or lustful criminals who commit crimes against sex and chastity7. Key
Concepts
Determinism: The positivist school rejects the idea of free will and argues that individual’s
behaviour, including criminal behaviour, is determined by various factors, such as their
biological makeup, psychological traits, and social environment.

Scientific Methods: The positivist school advocates for the use of scientific methods, such as
empirical research and data analysis, to study crime and criminal behaviour. It emphasises the
importance of evidence-based approaches in understanding and managing crime.

Rehabilitation: The positivist school believes that individuals who engage in criminal
behaviour can be rehabilitated through treatment and intervention programs. It focuses on
addressing the underlying causes of criminal behaviour rather than punishing offenders.

Relevant Provisions

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: This legislation, which deals
with juvenile offenders, reflects the positivist school’s emphasis on rehabilitation and
reformation rather than punishment. It provides for various measures, such as counselling,
education, and vocational training, for the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders.

Contribution

The positivist school of criminology has contributed to the understanding of crime and
criminal behaviour in India by highlighting the importance of scientific methods and
evidence-based approaches. It has influenced the development of policies and programs
aimed at rehabilitating offenders and addressing the underlying causes of crime, particularly
in the context of juvenile justice.

Comparative Analysis of the Schools of Criminology

As stated above each school of criminology deals with a different theory therefore, it is
essential to create a demarcation between the schools.

Pre-classical and Classical school

The Pre-classical school was based on the demonological theory which states that a man is
incapable of committing crime and when he does so it shall be presumed that such a crime
has been committed because the offender has been possessed by a demon or an evil spirits
which compels such a person to commit crime whereas, the Classical school rejected the
demonological or Pre-classical school theory and was based upon the ‘free will’ theory which
states that offender commits crime upon his free will for the sole reason to receive pleasure
and cause pain to the victim. The Pre-classical school believed in subjecting the offender to
extreme and severe torture by way of Ordeals in order to formulate the guilt of the offender
however, the classical school believed in subjecting the offender to torture but by way of
harsh punishments and that it suggested a substantial criminal policy which was easy to
administer

without resort to the imposition of arbitrary punishment. Therefore, classical school was
against granting of arbitrary punishment by the judiciary and confined the judiciary within its
four walls. Another point of difference is that the pre-classical had no existence of scientific
explanation and was solely based upon the omnipotence of the demon whereas, the classical
school was based upon scientific explanation and rationality.

A point of similarity between the aforementioned schools is that both of the schools placed
reliance upon the crime rather than the criminal therefore, ignoring the mental aspect and the
true reason for the causation of crime.

Classical and Positive School

The classical school defined law in the legal terms whereas, the Positive law school rejected
the legal definition rather adopted the sociological definition of law. The classical school
placed reliance upon the theory that crime committed by a person is solely based on the free
will of such a person whereas, the Positive school placed reliance upon the anthropological
features of the criminal. The classical school focussed upon the crime rather than the criminal
which restricted the scope for reformation whereas, the positive school focusses upon the
criminal rather than the crime which helps in understanding the nature and mental element of
the criminal thereby, helping in deciding the liability of such an offender and the correct
method adopted for reformation and rehabilitation. The main exponents of classical school
were Beccaria and Bentham whereas, the main exponents of Positive School were Lambroso,
Ferri and Garofalo. In the 18th century attempts were made to enhance and reform the
criminal justice system in order to protect criminals against arbitrary discretion of judges who
imparted punishments without applying their judicial mind. Whereas, it was a 19th century
doctrine which emphasized on scientific method of study and imparted emphasis upon
criminal and shifted focus from retribution to corrective method of treatment. Therefore, it
can be concluded that the time period, the theorist as well as the theory adopted in the
Classical school and Positive school was completely different from one another.

Pre-classical and Positive school

The aforementioned schools differed from one another in various aspects, the pre-classical
based on the demonological theory which states that a man is incapable of committing crime
and when he does so it shall be presumed that such a crime has been committed because the
offender has been possessed by a demon or an evil spirit which compels such a person to

commit crime whereas, the Positive school placed reliance upon the anthropological features
of a criminal. The Pre-classical school ignored the true reason for the causation of crime and
ignored the mental aspect of the criminal therefore, the reliance was upon the crime rather
than the criminal on the other hand, the Positive school emphasised the importance upon the
personality of the criminal, the mental aspect, the true reason for the causation of crime
thereby placing reliance upon the criminal rather than the crime. The pre-classical and the
Positive school had completely different approaches not just upon the theories but also the
method of punishments, the pre-classical school made the offenders undergo through battles,
pelting of stones and was believed that no harm would be caused if the offender was innocent
which could be traced by the Ordeal test which was a method of torturing or subjecting the
offender to severe torture to determine whether or not such an offender was guilty of the
offence which he was charged with, whereas the Positive school completely rejected and
opposed the Ordeal test and emphasised on the Reformation Theory which believed in
reforming and the rehabilitation of the offender back into the society rather than mere
punishment for the sake of vengeance.
Pre-classical and Neo-classical school

The difference between the afore-mentioned school revolves mainly around the theory
adopted of demonology (in pre-classical) and determinism (Neo-classical). The Pre-classical
as stated above determined the guilt of the offender upon the Ordeals which was severe
torture but the Neo-classical school was against such torture and termed it as unjust and
unfair and the mitigating factors like physical and social environment where the individual
was placed must be considered while discharging the criminal liability.

Classical and Neo-classical school

While, the classical school based its theory upon the free will concept stating that every
offender commits crime for the sole reason of receiving pleasure and causing pain to the
victim on account of his own free will whereas, the Neo-classical school created a difference
between total free will and determinism and argues that, no person has total free will. The neo
classical school allows for mitigating factors to be considered while determining the guilt of
an offender. The classical school imparted equal punishments to all irrespective of the crime
committed, the neo-classical school saw this as unjust and unfair and thus allowed for change
to transpire. This

Neo-classical and Positive school

The Neo-classical school and the positive school did not differ much in their theory however,
the only aspect of difference was that the Neo-classical school considered the physical and
social environment where the individual was placed and the Positive school considered the
anthropological or the personality traits and the mental element to determine the criminal
liability of the offender.

Conclusion

Criminology is a well-recognised concept and helps in adjudicating the criminal liability of

theoffender. The different schools of criminology defined the term crime according to the
rationality of the society then and devised theories based upon it. Each theory in itself
considered different factors for the causation of crime and allotted punishments based on
suchreasons10.

Sociological School of Criminology

The sociological school of criminology focuses on the social and structural factors that
contribute to crime and criminal behaviour. It examines how social institutions, such as family,
education, and the economy, influence individuals’ behaviour and their likelihood of engaging
in criminal activities.

The sociological school argues that crime is a result of social inequalities, social
disorganisation, and the breakdown of social bonds.

Key Concepts
Social Structure: The sociological school emphasises the role of social structure, including
social class, poverty, and inequality, in shaping individuals’ behaviour and their propensity to
commit crimes. It highlights how social inequalities and structural factors can contribute to
crime and criminal behaviour.
Social Disorganisation: The sociological school examines how the breakdown of social
institutions and social disorganisation in communities can contribute to crime. It focuses on
how factors such as neighbourhood characteristics, community cohesion, and social control
can influence crime rates.

Social Bonds: The sociological school emphasises the importance of social bonds, such as
family, school, and community, in preventing crime. It argues that individuals with strong
social bonds are less likely to engage in criminal activities.

Relevant Provisions
Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1989: This legislation,
which is aimed at protecting marginalised communities from discrimination and violence,
reflects the sociological school’s emphasis on addressing social inequalities and structural
factors that contribute to crime. It provides for special provisions for the prevention and
punishment of offences against individuals belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes.

Contribution
The sociological school of criminology has contributed to the understanding of crime and
criminal behaviour in India by highlighting the role of social structure and social factors in
shaping individuals’ behaviour. It has influenced the development of policies and programs
aimed at addressing social inequalities, promoting social cohesion, and preventing crime.

Psychological School of Criminology

The psychological school of criminology focuses on the psychological factors that contribute
to crime and criminal behaviour. It examines how individual traits, personality disorders, and
mental health issues can influence individuals’ behaviour and their likelihood of engaging in
criminal activities. The psychological school argues that crime is a result of psychological
factors, such as personality disorders, cognitive processes, and emotional disturbances.

Key Concepts
Individual Traits: The psychological school emphasises the role of individual traits, such as
impulsivity, sensation-seeking, and empathy, in shaping individuals’ behaviour and their
propensity to commit crimes. It highlights how personality characteristics can influence
criminal behaviour.

Cognitive Processes: The psychological school examines how cognitive processes, such as
decision-making, moral reasoning, and problem-solving, can influence individuals’ behaviour
and their likelihood of engaging in criminal activities. It focuses on how cognitive factors can
affect the way individuals perceive and respond to the social environment.

Mental Health Issues: The psychological school recognises the role of mental health issues,
such as personality disorders, substance abuse, and psychopathy, in contributing to criminal
behaviour. It highlights how mental health issues can affect individuals’ behaviour and
decision-making processes.
Definition of Lombroso and his role in the Study of Crime
Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909) was an Italian criminologist and physician who made
significant contributions to the study of crime in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He is
best known for his theory of the “born criminal,” which posited that some individuals are
biologically predisposed to criminal behavior.

Today, Lombroso’s theory is largely discredited, with most scholars viewing criminal
behavior as the result of complex interactions between biological, psychological, and social
factors. Nonetheless, his work remains an important historical artifact, shedding light on the
evolution of criminological thought and the ways in which early researchers attempted to
explain the nature of crime.

Background of Lombroso’s theory

Lombroso’s theory of crime was based on the belief that criminal behavior was innate and
could be explained by physical and biological characteristics. He argued that criminals were
born with certain physical traits that made them more predisposed to criminal behavior, such
as a prominent jaw, narrow forehead, and excessive body hair. Lombroso believed that these
physical traits were evidence of atavism, or a return to primitive ancestral traits.

Key ideas of Lombroso’s theory of crime

Cesare Lombroso who developed a theory of crime based on the idea that criminal behavior
is biologically determined. Lombroso’s theory of crime has been widely debated and
criticized, but it remains an important historical perspective on the study of criminal
behavior.

The key ideas of Lombroso’s theory of crime include:

1. Biological Determinism: Lombroso believed that criminal behavior was determined

by biological factors, such as inherited characteristics and physical features. He
argued that criminals were a separate biological type, different from non-criminals,
and that criminal behavior was innate and inherited.
2. Atavism: Lombroso’s concept of atavism suggested that criminals were biologically
primitive and closer to our primitive ancestors than non-criminals. According to
Lombroso, criminals displayed physical characteristics such as asymmetrical facial
features, large jaws, and prominent cheekbones that were similar to those of primitive
humans.
3. Criminal Anthropology: Lombroso believed that the study of criminals’ physical and
psychological characteristics could provide valuable insights into the nature of crime.
He collected data on criminals’ physical features, mental health, and social
backgrounds to identify common traits that might be associated with criminal
behavior.
4. Criminal Psychology: Lombroso also believed that criminal behavior was influenced
by psychological factors, such as impulsivity, aggression, and a lack of empathy. He
argued that criminals had a lower level of moral development and a greater tendency
towards violence than non-criminals.
5. Criminal Justice: Lombroso’s theory of crime had significant implications for
criminal justice. He believed that criminals were not solely responsible for their
behavior and that punishment should be based on the individual’s biology and
 psychological makeup. He advocated for more lenient sentences for criminals with a
biological predisposition to criminal behavior and for the use of medical treatments to
“cure” criminal behavior.

Criticisms of Lombroso’s theory

There have been several criticisms of Cesare Lombroso’s theory of the “born criminal” since
its inception in the 19th century. Some of these criticisms are:

1. Lack of scientific rigor: Lombroso’s theory was based on the observation of physical
traits in cadavers and criminals, which lacked scientific rigor and objectivity. The
criteria for identifying a “born criminal” were vague and inconsistent, and Lombroso
did not conduct controlled experiments to support his claims.
2. Racial and gender biases: Lombroso’s theory was heavily influenced by the prevailing
prejudices of his time, including racial and gender biases. He believed that certain
races and ethnic groups were more prone to criminal behavior, and that women were
less likely to be “born criminals” than men.
3. Overemphasis on physical characteristics: Lombroso’s theory placed too much
emphasis on physical characteristics as the sole determinant of criminal behavior,
while ignoring the complex interplay of environmental, social, and psychological
factors that contribute to criminal behavior.
4. Lack of empirical evidence: Despite the popularity of Lombroso’s theory during his
time, there was little empirical evidence to support his claims. Modern criminologists
have conducted numerous studies that have shown the limited role of genetics in
criminal behavior and have identified a range of other factors that contribute to
criminal behavior.
 Heredity and Crime
Heredity refers to the genetic transmission of traits and characteristics from one generation to
the next. Heredity plays a significant role in determining an individual’s physical and
behavioral characteristics, including criminal behavior. In this context, heredity and crime
refer to the study of the relationship between genetic factors and criminal behavior.

Definition of Heredity and its Role in Criminal Behavior

Heredity refers to the genetic transmission of traits and characteristics from one generation to
the next. Genetic factors are believed to play a significant role in determining an individual’s
susceptibility to criminal behavior. Some studies have suggested that certain genetic
variations are associated with an increased risk of criminal behavior, including aggression,
impulsivity, and psychopathy.

However, it is important to note that genetics are not the sole determinants of criminal
behavior. Environmental factors, such as childhood experiences, poverty, and socialization,
also play a significant role in determining an individual’s propensity for criminal behavior.

Understanding the interplay between genetic and environmental factors is crucial for gaining
a comprehensive understanding of criminal behavior. While genetic factors may increase an
individual’s vulnerability to criminal behavior, it is important to note that environmental
factors can also mitigate or exacerbate genetic predispositions.

For example, an individual with a genetic predisposition to aggression may not exhibit
criminal behavior if they are raised in a supportive and nurturing environment. Conversely,
an individual without a genetic predisposition to aggression may exhibit criminal behavior if
they experience chronic stress, trauma, or abuse during childhood.

Additionally, genetics may interact with environmental factors to increase the risk of criminal
behavior. For example, an individual with a genetic predisposition to aggression may be more
likely to exhibit criminal behavior if they experience chronic stress, trauma, or abuse during
childhood.

The historical context of the study of Heredity and Crime

The study of heredity and crime has a controversial history that can be traced back to the
eugenics movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The eugenics movement
advocated for the selective breeding of individuals with “desirable” genetic traits and the
sterilization of those with “undesirable” traits, including criminals. This movement was based
on the belief that criminal behavior was inherited and that it could be eradicated through
selective breeding.

The eugenics movement gained popularity in the United States and Europe, and its principles
were adopted by policymakers and social scientists. In the United States, eugenic policies
were enacted in several states, including California, where forced sterilization of individuals
deemed “unfit” was practiced until the 1960s.

The eugenics movement’s influence on the study of heredity and crime continued into the
20th century. Some criminologists and social scientists believed that criminal behavior was
the result of biological and genetic factors and that it could be eradicated through eugenic
policies.
However, the eugenics movement lost support after the atrocities committed by the Nazi
regime during World War II. The revelation of the Holocaust and the Nazi’s use of eugenics
to justify their policies discredited the eugenics movement and its principles.

Today, the study of heredity and crime has evolved beyond the simplistic and discriminatory
beliefs of the eugenics movement. Researchers acknowledge the complex interplay between
genetic and environmental factors and the need to address social and economic inequality in
addressing criminal behavior.

Criticisms of the Heredity Theory of Crime

The heredity theory of crime has been criticized on several grounds. One criticism is that it
oversimplifies the complex interplay between genetic and environmental factors. Genetic
factors alone cannot account for the complex and multifaceted nature of criminal behavior.
Another criticism is that the theory has been used to justify discrimination against certain
groups, including racial and ethnic minorities.

Overall, heredity and crime refer to the study of the relationship between genetic factors and
criminal behavior. While genetic factors are believed to play a significant role, it is important
to note that they are not the sole determinants of criminal behavior. Environmental factors
also play a significant role. The heredity theory of crime has been criticized on several
grounds, including oversimplification of the complex interplay between genetic and
environmental factors and the potential for discrimination against certain groups.

Mental Retardation and Crime

Intellectual disability, or mental retardation, is a condition that involves notable limitations in

cognitive functioning and adaptive behavior. While mental retardation does not directly cause
criminal behavior, it can contribute to the development of criminal behavior. Individuals with
mental retardation may have difficulty with impulse control, decision-making, and problem-
solving skills. Additionally, they may struggle with understanding the consequences of their
actions, leading to a lack of insight into their behavior. This lack of insight can lead to
repeated criminal behavior and a cycle of incarceration. However, contemporary research has
found that the relationship between mental retardation and crime is complex and influenced
by a variety of factors, including co-occurring mental health disorders and social and
environmental factors.

The historical context of the study of mental retardation and crime

The study of mental retardation and crime dates back to the late 19th century when people
with mental retardation were often institutionalized and treated as societal outcasts. At that
time, the eugenics movement was gaining momentum, which aimed to improve the genetic
quality of the human population. This led to the sterilization of people with mental
retardation, as they were seen as undesirable for reproduction.

In the early 20th century, researchers began to explore the link between mental retardation
and crime. This led to the development of the “feeblemindedness” theory, which proposed
that people with mental retardation were more likely to engage in criminal behavior due to
their low intelligence. The theory gained popularity and led to the widespread
institutionalization of people with mental retardation in the criminal justice system.
However, the “feeblemindedness” theory has been criticized for its stigmatizing and outdated
assumptions about the relationship between intelligence and criminal behavior. Critics argue
that the theory ignores the impact of social and environmental factors on criminal behavior
and unfairly blames individuals with mental retardation for their behavior.

Contemporary research has found that the relationship between mental retardation and crime
is complex and influenced by a variety of factors. It is important to recognize that individuals
with mental retardation are capable of leading fulfilling lives and should not be stigmatized or
blamed for their behavior.

Critics of the mental retardation theory of Crime

Critics of the mental retardation theory of crime argue that it is stigmatizing and unjustly
holds individuals with mental retardation responsible for their criminal behavior. They point
out that this theory is based on outdated and inaccurate assumptions about the relationship
between intelligence and criminal behavior, and that it ignores the impact of social and
environmental factors such as poverty and discrimination on criminal behavior.

Furthermore, critics argue that the mental retardation theory of crime can lead to unfair
treatment of individuals with mental retardation within the criminal justice system. For
instance, individuals with mental retardation may be more likely to be found incompetent to
stand trial or to receive harsher sentences due to the perception that they are not fully
responsible for their actions.

Instead of focusing solely on mental retardation as a cause of criminal behavior, critics

suggest that more attention should be paid to addressing the complex social and
environmental factors that contribute to crime. They also emphasize the importance of
providing support and resources to individuals with mental retardation to help them lead
fulfilling lives and avoid involvement with the criminal justice system.
 Anomi
The concept of anomie, in sociology, can be defined as a state of normlessness, disorder, or
confusion in a society when the standard norms and values are weak or unclear. This lack of
social or ethical standards can lead to disconnection, deviance, and social instability among
individuals.French sociologist Emile Durkheim introduced it and later expanded it by others
like Robert K. Merton.

Robert K. Merton expanded the theory to explain why some people engage in deviant
behavior, like crime, suggesting it often arises from a disjunction between societal goals and
the legitimate means to achieve them.

Émile Durkheim, a pioneering sociologist, introduced the concept of anomie in his 1893
book, "The Division of Labor in Society." He believed that in modern societies, social order
and stability result from a consensus on norms and values upheld by institutions like
education and religion. Anomie occurs when societal norms become unclear, leading to
confusion about proper behavior. During such periods, people feel a sense of normlessness,
where their actions are not constrained by shared values.

Durkheim associated anomie with an abnormal form of the division of labor, where
insufficient regulation hinders cooperation among different social functions. For instance, in
conflicts between capitalists and workers, limited interaction prevents individuals from
realizing shared goals, fostering anomie.

Later, in his 1897 work, "Suicide: A Study in Sociology," Durkheim connected anomie to
suicide rates. He noted that societies with high suicide rates experienced a breakdown in
norms and values. Durkheim classified anomic suicide as one of four types, suggesting that it
occurs when rapid societal changes lead to unclear norms, allowing individuals' aspirations to
become limitless. In such circumstances, deviance, like suicide, may result.

Durkheim observed that Catholic societies, characterized by strongly integrated social

groups, had lower suicide rates than Protestant societies, where the ability to question
established norms contributed to higher normlessness. He argued that as society rapidly
changes, norms become unclear, leading to anomie, and individuals may deviate by pursuing
unrealistic goals.

In summary, Durkheim's concept of anomie highlights the link between societal norms, social
order, and individual behavior. Anomie emerges when norms are unclear, leading to a
breakdown in social order and potentially deviant behavior, such as anomic suicide.

Merton’s Strain Theory Of Anomie And Deviance

Robert K. Merton (1938, 1957) extended the theory of anomie to the United States and
argued that anomie is not simply about unregulated goals but a broken relationship between
cultural goals and legitimate means of accessing them.

Mertonian anomie is a strain theory that proposes social structures within a society may
pressure citizens to commit crimes. It arises when there’s a disjunction between culturally
prescribed goals (like wealth and success) and the socially acceptable means to achieve them.
This disconnect can lead to strain, resulting in different types of deviant behavior, depending
on how individuals adapt to this strain.

Development of Merton’s Theory

Richard Cloward, a student of Merton, extended Merton’s theory of anomie further by adding
the dimension of illegitimate means. Just as not everyone has access to legitimate means, not
everyone has access to illegitimate means (Cloward, 1959).

For some people, becoming wealthy through being a successful drug dealer is just as
unrealistic — or more so — than becoming wealthy through a successful businessman.

Those who wish to obtain success through illegitimate means do not necessarily have the
skills and connections to do so (Inderbitzen, Bates, & Gainey, 2016).

To understand deviance, Cloward and Ohlin argued, we need to understand not only the
motivations of individuals to commit deviant acts but also the accessibility they have to
participate in them (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960).

Anomie Theory Criminology

Sociologists see anomie as a primary driver of crime (Bernburg, 2002), and this has been so
for several decades. Merton’s strain theory of adaptation to anomie and illegitimate means
dominated sociological research in crime during the 1950s and 60s, but many sociologists
criticized this theory (Hirschi, 1969).

In short, it is difficult, if not impossible, to measure how whole societies focus on goals and
means (Kubrin, Stucky, & Krohn 2009).

Messner and Rosenfeld (2007) outline four main critiques of Merton’s anomie theory:

1. It may be wrong to assume that all Americans, for example, share the same cultural
goals. For many, other goals may be just as or more important than wealth
acquisition (Muftic, 2006).

2. Merton’s theory has difficulty explaining deviance among the privileged classes.
For example, a wealthy entrepreneur who went to an Ivy League college may
embezzle funds despite the fact that he has already met the cultural value of
monetary success.

3. Merton suggests that equal opportunity is a realistic solution to crime, which

Messner and Rosenfeld disagree with.

4. Merton never defines anomie precisely (Inderbitzen, Bates, & Gainey 2016,
Messner & Rosenfeld 2007).
Institutionalized Anomie Theory

Messner and Rosenfield (2008) responded to these critiques by developing a theory of

institutionalized anomie.

This theory argues that the levels and drivers of crime in American society directly result
from the tension between America’s cultural goal of success through wealth obtainment and
the reality that such wealth is unrealistic for many to obtain.

Unable to obtain this goal through legitimate means, individuals innovate through crime
(2007). This institutional anomie theory focuses on culture and social structure as manifested
by social institutions.

This results in the premise that the normal levels and forms of crime in a society are a
reflection of the fundamental features of social organization (Messner & Rosenfeld 2008).

In institutionalized anomie theory, institutions guide the actions that individuals take. The
people affected by these institutions chose goals (ends) and ways of obtaining these goals
(means).

Any individual has many ends and many means specific to them, but for social order to exist,
there needs to be a meaningful number of individuals who share a value system (Parsons
1990).

Societies are also made up of institutions. Social institutions are interdependent, but these
institutions may have competing demands. For example, performing a role at a company may
require working overtime and contradict the role of another institution (like taking a daughter
to soccer practice) (Messner & Rosenfeld 2008).

Institutionalized anomie theory claims that societies that have high levels of crime are ones
where the institution of the economy has the highest priority.

People feel pressured to sacrifice other roles to fill economic ones — like stopping shared
meal times at a family table to accommodate work schedules — and the market intrudes into
other facets of social life — like paying students based on their educational accomplishments
(Messner & Rosenfeld 2007).

Because economics — and the attainment of wealth — takes precedence over every other
institution, people will resort to any means necessary to meet the cultural goal of obtaining
wealth, even if this causes harm to other institutions by going against norms.

When the economy dominates, non-economic institutions become weaker and people feel
less constrained by their norms — especially those written as laws. This results in anomie and
high levels of crime (Messner & Rosenfeld 2008).

Anomie Examples
Beauty Standards in the United States

In the past few decades, the majority of fashion models have been tall and thin, occasionally
dangerously so. These models are groomed for hours and then airbrushed and photoshopped
to appear perfect.

Reality television has glorified seeking these standards through plastic surgery, and young
women and men have been exposed to unrealistic expectations of how they should look.

Because society has failed to regulate the expectations of its members in physical
attractiveness, deviance results in the form of eating disorders and extensive plastic surgery
(Inderbitzen, Bates, & Gainey, 2016).

As the people in these groups are interdependent, the unethical behavior of an individual can
be the downfall of all.

 Anomie theory is a theory that attempts to explain deviant or criminal behavior as a

result of the lack of social norms and regulations.

 The term “anomie” was first popularised by French sociologist Émile Durkheim in his
1897 book Suicide, where he used it to refer to the lack of integration or social
cohesion within a society.

 Withouta sense of social solidarity, society can fall into anomie, a normlessness
where a person doesn’t know what it means to be normal within society.

 Durkheim suggested that modern industrial societies were consequently characterized

by moral confusion or ‘anomie’. This means that some members of society were
more likely to challenge and reject shared values and norms of behavior, and this
‘normlessness’ often resulted in crime and deviance.

 Anomie theory has since been further developed by other theorists, such as Robert
Merton, who used it to explain deviance in his strain theory.

 The main tenets of modern anomie theories are that: (i) People conform to societal
norms in order to gain rewards or avoid punishment; (ii) When there is a
discrepancy between the goals people want to achieve and the means available to
them to achieve those goals, anomie results, motivating deviance.
 SUTHERLAND’S DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY
Differential Association Theory is a criminological theory developed by sociologist Edwin
Sutherland in the 1940s. The theory suggests that criminal behavior is learned through social
interactions with other individuals in one’s environment. According to the theory, individuals
are more likely to engage in criminal behavior when they have more exposure to pro-criminal
attitudes and values than to anti-criminal attitudes and values.[4]

The theory proposes that criminal behavior is learned through a process of association with
others who have similar attitudes and values toward criminal behavior. This association can
occur within intimate personal groups such as family, peers, and close friends. The theory
suggests that individuals are more likely to engage in criminal behavior when they have more
frequent, longer, earlier, and more intense exposure to pro-criminal attitudes and values.[5]

The theory also introduces the concept of differential reinforcement, which suggests that
behavior is reinforced or punished by rewards or punishments. In the context of criminal
behavior, individuals are more likely to engage in criminal behavior when they receive
rewards for doing so or when they do not receive punishment for engaging in criminal
behavior. Sutherland’s theory has been influential in the field of criminology and has
stimulated further research and theorizing. Some scholars have attempted to refine the theory
by integrating elements of other theories or by focusing on specific types of criminal
behavior. Others have proposed alternative theories that emphasize different aspects of the
relationship between society and crime. Overall, Differential Association Theory remains an
important contribution to our understanding of the complex interplay between social factors
and criminal behavior.

Sutherland identified nine key factors that influence the process of differential association:
frequency, duration, priority, intensity, age, sex, values, techniques, and attitudes. He
suggested that individuals are more likely to engage in criminal behavior when they have
more frequent, longer, earlier, and more intense exposure to pro-criminal attitudes and values.
He introduced nine propositions as part of his Differential Association Theory, which was
designed to explain the learning of criminal behavior through social interactions. These
propositions introduced three key concepts that are central to the theory: differential
association, definitions, and differential reinforcement.

The nine propositions of the theory are:

1. Criminal behavior is learned through social interaction.

2. Criminal behavior is learned within intimate personal groups.
3. The learning of criminal behavior includes techniques, motives, and attitudes.
4. Criminal behavior is a result of an excess of definitions favorable to the violation of
the law over definitions unfavorable to the violation of the law.
5. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
6. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-
criminal patterns involves all the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning
process.
7. Criminal behavior is not explained by general needs and values.
8. Criminal behavior is expressed through an individual’s general needs and values but
is not caused by them.
9. Criminal behavior is a result of differential reinforcement, where behavior is
reinforced or punished by rewards or punishments.[6]
The first three propositions introduce the concept of differential association, which refers to
the idea that individuals learn criminal behavior through exposure to pro-criminal attitudes
and values within their social environment. The fourth proposition introduces the concept of
definitions, which refers to an individual’s attitudes toward criminal behavior, and whether
they view it as right or wrong. The fifth proposition highlights that the process of learning
criminal behavior through association is influenced by the frequency, duration, priority, and
intensity of an individual’s exposure to pro-criminal attitudes and values.

Finally, the last three propositions introduce the concept of differential reinforcement, which
refers to the idea that behavior is reinforced or punished by rewards or punishments. These
propositions suggest that individuals are more likely to engage in criminal behavior when
they receive rewards for doing so or when they do not receive punishment for engaging in
criminal behavior.

Together, these nine propositions and the concepts they introduce provide a framework for
understanding how individuals learn criminal behavior through social interactions and how
social environments can shape an individual’s attitudes and behaviors.

Scope:

The scope of Differential Association Theory is quite broad, and its applicability to a range of
different social settings and populations makes it a valuable theoretical framework for
understanding the complex factors that contribute to criminal behavior. One of the strengths
of the theory is its applicability to a wide range of different types of criminal behavior, from
property crimes to violent offenses. The theory also emphasizes the importance of social
context in shaping criminal behavior and can be applied to a variety of different social
settings, from family and peer groups to larger social institutions.[7]

Additionally, Differential Association Theory can be used to explore the ways in which
cultural and societal norms may influence criminal behavior and to identify potential
interventions and strategies for preventing and addressing criminality.[8]

Criticism:

Although Differential Association Theory has been influential in the field of criminology, it
has also faced criticism from scholars who question its assumptions and applicability.[9] Some
of the criticisms of the theory are:

1. Lack of empirical evidence: Some scholars argue that the empirical evidence
supporting Differential Association Theory is weak and that the theory is based on
assumptions rather than rigorous empirical testing.
2. Overemphasis on social learning: Some critics argue that the theory places too much
emphasis on social learning as the sole cause of criminal behavior and that other
factors, such as individual psychology, personality traits, and biological factors,
should also be considered.
3. Ignoring individual agency: Critics argue that the theory ignores the role of individual
agency and free will and that it implies that individuals have no choice but to engage
in criminal behavior if they are exposed to pro-criminal attitudes and values.
4. Difficulty in measuring concepts: Some scholars argue that concepts such as
“definitions” and “differential association” are difficult to measure and quantify,
making it challenging to test the theory empirically.
 5. Limited scope: Some critics argue that Differential Association Theory is limited in
scope and only applies to certain types of criminal behavior, such as property crimes
and white-collar crimes, and may not be applicable to other types of crime.

Despite these criticisms, Differential Association Theory remains a significant contribution to

the field of criminology, and its emphasis on the social dimensions of criminal behavior
continues to be influential.[10]

RECKLESS’S SOCIAL VULNERABLE THEORY

Social Vulnerability Theory is a criminological theory that suggests that individuals who
experience social and personal stressors are more likely to engage in criminal behavior than
those who do not experience such stressors. The theory was developed by Walter Reckless in
the 1960s as an extension of his containment theory.[11]

The theory proposes that individuals who are exposed to certain social and personal stressors
are more likely to engage in criminal behavior because these stressors weaken their capacity
for self-control. These stressors may include poverty, unemployment, family instability, lack
of social support, discrimination, and others.

Reckless argued that an individual’s level of containment – a combination of internal and

external factors that constrain or control their behavior – plays a crucial role in determining
whether they engage in criminal behavior. Internal containment includes factors such as self-
esteem, self-concept, and moral beliefs, while external containment includes factors such as
social norms, the legal system, and formal institutions.

Reckless suggested that individuals who have strong containment are less likely to engage in
criminal behavior, even when they experience social vulnerability. On the other hand,
individuals who have weak containment are more likely to engage in criminal behavior, even
when they do not experience social vulnerability.[12]

Social Vulnerability Theory has been influential in the field of criminology and has
stimulated further research and theorizing. Some scholars have attempted to refine the theory
by integrating elements of other theories or by focusing on specific types of criminal
behavior. Others have proposed alternative theories that emphasize different aspects of the
relationship between social factors and criminal behavior.[13]

Social Vulnerability Theory, therefore, highlights the importance of addressing social and
personal stressors as a means of reducing criminal behavior, and it remains an important
contribution to our understanding of the complex interplay between social factors and
criminal behavior.

Inner and Outer Containment:

Inner and outer containment are two components of Reckless’s Social Vulnerability Theory,
which proposes that individuals who experience social and personal stressors are more likely
to engage in criminal behavior unless they have strong internal and external containment.

Inner containment refers to an individual’s internal self-control mechanisms, including self-

esteem, self-concept, and moral beliefs. Individuals with strong inner containment are better
able to resist the pressures to engage in criminal behavior even when they are exposed to
social and personal stressors.[14]

Outer containment, on the other hand, refers to the external factors that limit an individual’s
ability to engage in criminal behavior. These external factors include social norms, the legal
system, and formal institutions. For example, the threat of punishment by law enforcement
agencies can be a strong outer containment mechanism that limits an individual’s ability to
engage in criminal behavior. [15]

Reckless argued that individuals with strong inner and outer containment are less likely to
engage in criminal behavior, even when they experience social and personal stressors. In
contrast, individuals with weak inner and outer containment are more likely to engage in
criminal behavior, even when they do not experience social and personal stressors.[16]

Overall, Reckless’s theory emphasizes the importance of both internal and external factors in
preventing criminal behavior and highlights the need for interventions that strengthen both
inner and outer containment mechanisms to reduce crime and improve social outcomes.

Scope:

The scope of Social Vulnerable Theory is broad and encompasses a range of individual-level
and external factors that contribute to criminal behavior. Its focus on social vulnerability and
external pressures makes it a valuable theoretical framework for understanding the complex
factors that contribute to criminality in a variety of different social settings and populations.
One of the strengths of the theory is its focus on the individual-level factors that contribute to
criminal behavior, including social vulnerability and external pressures that may weaken an
individual’s capacity for self-control. This perspective allows the theory to be applied to a
wide range of different types of criminal behavior, from property crimes to violent offenses
and can be useful for understanding the complex interplay between individual-level and
external factors that contribute to criminality. Social Vulnerable Theory can also be used to
explore the ways in which social institutions and cultural norms may contribute to social
vulnerability and weaken individuals’ capacity for self-control and to identify potential
interventions and strategies for preventing and addressing criminal behavior.[17]

Criticism:

Reckless’s Social Vulnerable Theory has also faced some criticism over the years. Some of
the main criticisms include the following:

1. A simplistic view of crime: Some critics argue that Reckless’s theory presents a
simplistic view of criminal behavior, as it suggests that criminal behavior can be
explained solely by the interaction of individual-level factors and external stressors.
This may overlook the complex social and cultural factors that contribute to crime,
such as poverty, racism, and social inequality.
2. Limited applicability: Reckless’s theory was primarily developed to explain
delinquent behavior among youth, and some scholars argue that it may not fully
account for other types of criminal behavior or for the experiences of adults who
engage in criminal activity.
3. Lack of attention to social context: Some critics argue that Reckless’s theory fails to
adequately consider the broader social and cultural context in which criminal behavior
 occurs and may overlook the impact of factors such as peer pressure, cultural norms,
and community dynamics on an individual’s decision to engage in criminal activity.
4. Lack of clarity on causal mechanisms: Some scholars have criticized Reckless’s
theory for its lack of clarity regarding the causal mechanisms that link social
vulnerability and criminal behavior. It remains unclear exactly how social and
personal stressors weaken an individual’s capacity for self-control and leads to
criminal behavior.

Overall, while Reckless’s Social Vulnerable Theory has made important contributions to our
understanding of the relationship between social vulnerability and criminal behavior, it has
faced some criticism and continues to be refined and developed by scholars in the field.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUTHERLAND’S DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION

THEORY AND RECKLESS’S SOCIAL VULNERABLE THEORY

While both Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory and Reckless’s Social Vulnerable
Theory are important theoretical frameworks for understanding criminal behavior, they differ
in several key ways.[18]

1. Focus: Differential Association Theory focuses on how criminal behavior is learned

through social interactions with others who have deviant attitudes and values. Social
Vulnerable Theory, on the other hand, emphasizes how social vulnerability can
weaken an individual’s capacity for self-control, leading to criminal behavior.
2. Learning vs. Capacity: Differential Association Theory emphasizes the importance of
learning criminal behavior through social interactions, while Social Vulnerable
Theory focuses on the role of social vulnerability in weakening an individual’s
capacity for self-control.
3. Social vs. Individual: Differential Association Theory emphasizes the importance of
social context and peer relationships in shaping an individual’s behavior, while Social
Vulnerable Theory highlights the importance of individual-level and external factors
in contributing to criminal behavior.
4. Causality: Differential Association Theory suggests that criminal behavior is a result
of learning from others, while Social Vulnerable Theory emphasizes the complex
interplay between individual-level and external factors contributing to criminal
behavior.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, both Edward Sutherland's Differential Association Theory and Reckless's

Social Vulnerable Theory significantly contribute to the field of criminology by highlighting
the crucial role of social and environmental factors in shaping criminal behavior. Sutherland's
theory underscores the influence of social interactions and peer relationships in learning
deviant attitudes, emphasizing the importance of socialization processes and the context in
which behavior is formed. Despite facing criticism, it remains a influential framework that
has spurred further research in the field. On the other hand, Reckless's theory focuses on the
relationship between social vulnerability and criminal behavior, acknowledging the
interaction between individual-level and external factors. While it has strengths in its
applicability to various criminal behaviors, it is not without its limitations. However, both
theories, in their respective ways, have advanced our understanding of the multifaceted
factors contributing to criminality, providing valuable frameworks for criminological inquiry.
Crime caution is a discouraging and multiplex field. For centuries, philosophers have reviewed
the meaning of the conception of cause as it regards human behavior. Growingly, research
advises that individuals are unaware of the causes of the other people’s behaviour as well as the
causes of much of their performance. Modern crimes cause models to favour an interdisciplinary
lens that recognizes how different fields complement, rather than contract with, one another. This
approach acknowledges that no single theory can explain all the types of criminality nor the legal
and moral issues that convoy them

A crime can be described as commission or omission of an act done with mala fide intention.
From time immemorial, philosophers have been studying the causes that lead to the committing a
crime. They have come to a position where they state that there plays a multiple number of
factors in the crime causation.Social Structure Theories:

Description: Social structure theories, including strain theory and social disorganization
theory, examine how social and economic conditions influence criminal behavior. Strain
theory posits that individuals turn to crime when they experience a disjunction between
societal goals and the means available to achieve them. Social disorganization theory, on the
other hand, explores how the breakdown of community structures and institutions contributes
to higher crime rates, particularly in impoverished neighborhoods.

Social Learning Theories:

Description: Social learning theories, exemplified by Edwin Sutherland's Differential

Association Theory, propose that criminal behavior is learned through interactions with
others who endorse deviant values and behaviors. Individuals acquire criminal tendencies by
associating with those who provide models for such behavior, emphasizing the role of peer
influence and social environments in shaping conduct.

Routine Activity Theory:

Description: Routine Activity Theory, developed by Cohen and Felson, focuses on the daily
activities and lifestyle choices that create opportunities for criminal acts. It posits that crime
is more likely to occur when a motivated offender encounters a suitable target in the absence
of capable guardianship. This theory highlights the importance of understanding the routine
activities that structure individuals' lives in crime prevention.

Biosocial Theories:

Description: Biosocial theories investigate the interplay between biological and

environmental factors in criminal behavior. These theories consider genetic predispositions,
neurological conditions, and early childhood experiences as contributors to criminal
tendencies. The goal is to understand how both nature and nurture influence an individual's
likelihood of engaging in criminal activities.

Labeling Theory:

Description: Labeling theory suggests that societal reactions to individuals labeled as

criminals can exacerbate criminal behavior. The process of being stigmatized and labeled
may lead individuals to adopt criminal identities as they internalize society's expectations.
This theory underscores the importance of understanding the social reactions to criminal
behavior in shaping subsequent actions.

Social Control Theories:

Description: Social control theories, such as Travis Hirschi's Social Bond Theory, propose
that strong social bonds and attachments deter individuals from engaging in criminal
activities. These bonds include attachment to others, commitment to conventional values,
involvement in legitimate activities, and belief in moral standards. Weakening these bonds is
thought to increase the likelihood of criminal behavior.

Life Course Theories:

Description: Life course theories examine how events and experiences across an individual's
life contribute to criminal behavior. These theories consider factors such as childhood
experiences, educational attainment, employment history, and major life events to understand
the development of criminal tendencies over time.

General Strain Theory:

Description: General Strain Theory by Robert Agnew builds on strain theory and incorporates
various sources of strain, including economic, social, and personal factors, as contributors to
criminal behavior. It suggests that negative emotions resulting from strain, such as frustration
and anger, can lead individuals to engage in criminal acts as a way of coping with or
alleviating the strain.

Economic theories

The roots of crime are several and a discipline like economics, predicated on rational
behavior, is also at something of an obstacle in explaining an irrational occurrence.
Describing the worldly trend in crime rates in most industrialized economies is the most
difficult task. Many social researchers argued that crime is closely connected with work,
education, and penury and that wagging, youth unemployment, and crime are the side-effects
or even count of social exclusion.

Political Factors:

It is well known that the Parliamentarians who are law-makers of the country are also
politicians. They succeed in mobilising public opinion in the desired way through the media
of press and platform and finally enact suitable laws to support their policies. Thus, political
ideologies gain strength through legislative process thereby directly influencing the criminal
patterns in a given society. The liberalisation of abortion law, imposition or withdrawal of
prohibition laws, anti-dowry, protection of women against domestic violence, prohibition on
pre-natal sex-determination, untouchability laws etc. are some of the examples to show as to
how the concept of criminality changes with the changed ideologies of the politicians and the
government in power.

The excessive interference of politicians in executive functions of the Government weakens

the morale of the administrators as well as the police, with the result there is spontaneous
growth in crime-rate. Political leaders would tend to maintain their political parties
financially sound and at the same time ensure themselves and their families against the
uncertainties of future. This led to increasing nexus between politicians and organised
criminals. This is followed by political bureaucracy-organised crime nexus. Once politicians
get involved, they become vulnerable and there is continuous pressure on them to repeat the
process. The ideologies of a political party also lead to rise in criminal activities.