An Introduction to Theory

What Is Theory?

Testing Theories

The Problem of Defining Crime

Why Is Theory Important, or Why Study Crime and Delinquency Theory?

WHAT IS THEORY?

A theory is an explanation. It tells why or how things are related to each other.1

A theory of crime explains why or how a certain thing or certain things are related to criminal behavior. For example, some theories assume that crime is a part of human nature, that human beings are born evil. In those theories, human nature is the thing explained in relation to crime. Other theories assume that crime is caused by biological things (for example, chromosome abnormalities, hormone imbalances), psychological things (such as below-normal intelligence, satisfaction of basic needs), sociological things (for instance, social disorganization, inadequate socialization), economic things (such as poverty, unemployment), or some combi- nation of all four kinds of things. In the chapters that follow, a variety of things associated with crime are examined. (Note that, unless indicated otherwise, the term crime includes delinquency.)

Scientific theories are comprised of (1) concepts, (2) definitions of concepts, and (3) propositions. Those “things” mentioned in the previous paragraph, in- cluding criminal behavior, are called concepts. Concepts are words or phrases that represent some phenomenon in the world. The object of theory is to ex- plain the interrelationship of concepts, that is, how concepts are related to each other. For example, through theory, we might attempt to explain how the con- cepts of crime and poverty are interrelated. Does poverty cause crime? Does crime cause poverty?

Definitions of concepts refer to both nominal and operational definitions. Nominal definitions are “dictionary definitions” assigned to concepts to clarify what the concepts mean to a researcher and to make possible general discussions

1

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

about them. The generally accepted nominal definition of the concept of crime, for example, is a violation of the criminal law. Operational definitions describe how concepts are or will be measured for research purposes. Standard operational definitions of the concept of crime include the category of “offenses known to the police” as reported in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) uniform crime reports or data on victimizations as reported in the U.S. Justice Department’s national crime victimization surveys. Offenses known to the police refer to crimes that are sometimes discovered by the police, but more generally are reported to the police and officially recorded by the police and sent to the FBI. Data from the national crime victimization surveys are based on interviews in which respondents are asked whether they have been victims of certain crimes during the past six months, and if they have, they are asked to provide informa- tion about the experience. Most crime theories assume those nominal and oper- ational definitions; however, interactionist, radical, and some critical theories question their usage. Alternative definitions of crime, and their implications, are discussed later in the chapter.

Interrelated concepts are called propositions. An example of a proposition that interrelates the concepts of poverty and crime is: “As poverty increases, crime increases.” This particular relationship is referred to as a positive linear relationship. A positive linear relationship is one in which concepts increase or decrease to- gether in a relatively straight-line fashion. Using the concepts of poverty and crime as examples, a positive linear relationship would be one where both pov- erty and crime increase or decrease together in a relatively straight-line fashion.

A negative linear relationship is one in which concepts vary in opposite direc- tions in a relatively straight-line fashion. Thus, using the concepts of poverty and crime again, a negative linear relationship would be one where poverty increases while crime decreases or poverty decreases while crime increases.

Possibly no relationship exists between the concepts. For example, poverty and crime may be completely unrelated to each other. In other words, increases or decreases in poverty may have no relationship to crime whatsoever.

Finally, not all relationships are linear. An example of a nonlinear relationship, using the concepts of poverty and crime, is that as poverty increases to a point, crime also increases, but after poverty reaches that point, crime decreases. This is called a curvilinear relationship, and some criminologists believe that it describes the relationship between poverty and crime during the height of the Depression in the United States during the 1930s.2

All theories are based on certain philosophical assumptions or ideas that can- not be tested scientifically or empirically.3 A scientific or empirical test uses human senses (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching) to discover some aspect of the world. Philosophical assumptions, which are also referred to as background or domain assumptions, are like religion in a way—they are either believed or they are not, but they cannot be supported empirically or scientifically. For example, despite some arguments to the contrary, it cannot be supported scientifically or empirically that God or some other supreme being exists. The existence of God or a supreme being is either believed or it is not.

2 C H A P T E R 1

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Though they often are ignored and thus are sometimes considered the “hidden agenda” of theories, the philosophical assumptions on which all theories are based should be considered another component of all theories. Three types of philosophical assumptions are important to all theories: ethical, epistemological, and metaphysical. Ethical assumptions or normative implications are ideas about what is “good” and “bad,” “right” and “wrong,” and what we ought to do. Thus, implicit in each theory about crime are certain value judgments and policy implications that follow logically from the theory. For example, if someone believes that criminal behavior is caused by poverty, then that person is probably making an implicit value judgment that crime and poverty are “bad.” A policy implication would be to reduce poverty in an effort to reduce crime. Likewise, if someone believes that criminal behavior is caused by poor parenting, then that person is probably making an implicit value judgment that crime and poor parenting are “bad.” A policy implication of the theory would be to reduce crime by improving parenting skills.

Policy implications, whatever they may be, generally can be linked to conser- vative, liberal, or radical political views. In this way, all crime theories are “political.” As conventionally defined, conservative policies aim to preserve traditional social institutions, methods, customs, and so forth; liberal policies seek reform or change by means of existing social institutions; and radical policies favor fundamental or extreme change by abolishing existing social institutions and creating new ones. Examples of social institutions are the family, organized religion, schools, the me- dia, the political system, and the economic system. Politically conservative criminal justice policies generally focus on the individual offender, leaving social institutions untouched. Examples of such policies are most bio- or psychotherapeutic interven- tions, “three strikes and you’re out” laws, and the death penalty. Politically liberal criminal justice policies, on the other hand, generally attack crime using existing social institutions, especially agencies of the state. Examples include educational and vocational programs, community policing, and after-school programs. Politi- cally radical criminal justice policies, by contrast, seek the fundamental transforma- tion of social institutions or their abolition. An economic system based predominately on socialist rather than capitalist principles, a redefinition of crime, greater attention to corporate and government crimes, and community-based strat- egies for controlling crime are examples of politically radical criminal justice poli- cies. In the examination of crime theories throughout this book, the value judgments and policy implications of the theories are described too.

The second type of philosophical assumption is epistemological. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that investigates the origins, structure, methods, and validity of knowledge. Epistemological assumptions address the question of how knowledge is obtained. Most crime theories are based on the epistemological assumption that the world can be understood through science, that is, the human capacity to observe and to reason. A related assumption is that once the world and its functioning are understood, then the world can be controlled or changed. With respect to crime, the assumption is that once the causes of crime are understood, then those causes can be effectively controlled or, perhaps, even eliminated.

A N I N T R O D U C T I O N T O T H E OR Y 3

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Some theories of crime, however, are based on the epistemological assump- tion that a single, objective reality does not exist. In this social-constructionist view, each person creates his or her own, unique social reality. Still other theo- ries of crime are based on other epistemological assumptions. Other ways of knowing, besides science and social constructionism, include authority, instinct, introspection, intuition, mysticism, spiritualism, extrasensory perception, anam- nesis (recollection from previous lifetimes), supernatural revelation, occult sources such as astrology, pragmatism, and linguistic analysis.4 In the examination of the theories in this book, the epistemological assumptions of each theory or group of theories are described as well.

Finally, implicit in all theories are metaphysical assumptions. Metaphysical assumptions address the question of what is the nature of reality. For purposes of this analysis, the important metaphysical assumptions involve human nature (ontology) and the nature of society (cosmology). All crime theories are based on two ontological assumptions. The first addresses whether human behavior, including criminal behavior, is freewilled or determined. The second considers the inherent condition of human beings, or the condition of human beings in a hypothetical “state of nature.”

Some theories assume that human beings are free to do whatever they please, while other theories assume that human beings are determined by forces largely beyond their control. An important corollary of the first assumption is that if humans are freewilled, then they are responsible for their behavior, unless, as is the case in many legal systems, they can provide an acceptable defense or excuse. A corollary of the second assumption is that if behavior is determined, then people ought not to be held liable, or at least not fully liable, for their crimes. If people freely choose to commit crimes and, thus, are responsible for them, then a norma- tive implication is that people should be deterred from committing crimes. How- ever, if criminal behavior is a product of factors (whether biological, psychological, or sociological) largely beyond an individual’s control, then an ethical implication is that those factors should be changed or eliminated. Ontological assumptions about free will and determinism will be discussed more fully when specific theories are examined in later chapters of this book.

The inherent condition of human beings, or the condition of human beings in a hypothetical “state of nature,” is the second important ontological assump- tion implicit in all crime theories. Three competing conceptualizations differen- tiate those theories. The first and oldest is that human beings are inherently bad or evil and, thus, likely or expected to commit crime. This view probably origi- nated with the Christian belief that everyone is born into original sin. The seventeenth-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), who wrote “the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” promoted the idea. This view of human nature is also found in Freudian psychoanalytic theory and some versions of social control theory. If, indeed, human beings are inherently bad or evil, then the general policy implication is that society must devise methods to constrain or control such behavior.

The second conceptualization is attributed to the seventeenth-century English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704), who believed that human beings

4 C H A P T E R 1

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

were born with a “tabula rasa” or blank slate. Such individuals are neither inher- ently good nor bad, but rather a product of their experiences. Learning theories are based on this assumption. The general policy implication is to structure society to pro- mote experiences conducive to law-abiding behavior rather than criminal behavior.

The third conceptualization portrays human beings as inherently good. This view is associated with the eighteenth-century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) and forms the basis of most critical theories. If, in this view, human beings are inherently good, then society, or something about society, makes human beings bad and prone to commit crime. The normative implication is to change society so that human beings will not be subjected to corrupting influences.

As for cosmological assumptions, some theories assume that the world is characterized primarily by a consensus about moral values, whereas other theories assume that the world is characterized primarily by conflict about moral values. In the first view, it is assumed that most people agree most of the time about what is right and wrong or good and bad. In the second view, the assumption is that most people disagree most of the time about what is right and wrong or good and bad. If a moral consensus in society exists, then an important ethical issue is how to control conflict. On the other hand, if conflict better characterizes social relations, then building consensus, better appreciating diversity, or repres- sing dissent and conflict are critical social goals implied by the assumption. Note that ethical assumptions or normative implications are derived directly from metaphysical assumptions. Put differently, beliefs about human nature and the nature of society inevitably guide public policy decisions. As was the case with the other philosophical assumptions, the metaphysical assumptions of each theory or group of theories will be described also.

Understanding the philosophical assumptions on which theories are based is important because theories frequently are accepted or rejected because of one’s belief in a theory’s philosophical assumptions rather than on the scientific support (or lack of support) for the theory. The reason is that scientific research into the causes of crime almost never offers conclusive results that support one competing theory over another. Focusing on philosophical assumptions, then, if it is believed that human beings are freewilled and thus completely responsible for their behavior, then it may be difficult to accept theories that posit that crime is determined by factors largely beyond the individual’s control. Even when the scientific evidence is compelling, the theory still may be rejected because it is not based on the philosophical assumptions in which one believes.

Philosophical assumptions are often grouped together in organizing schemes called paradigms. A paradigm is:

a fundamental image of the subject matter within a science. It serves to define what should be studied, what questions should be asked, how they should be asked, and what rules should be followed in interpreting the answers obtained. The paradigm is the broadest unit of consensus within a science and serves to differentiate one scientific community (or subcom- munity) from another. It subsumes, defines, and interrelates the exemplars, theories, and methods and instruments that exist within it.5

A N I N T R O D U C T I O N T O T H E OR Y 5

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

In this book the theories presented are grouped into three general paradigms: (1) the classical/neoclassical, (2) the positivist, and (3) the critical. The philosophical assumptions associated with each of the paradigms are described as each paradigm is introduced.

TEST ING THEORIES

Another important issue is the testing of theories, determining whether one the- ory is better (has more explanatory power) than another. Explanatory power, as applied to theories of crime, refers to the ability of a theory about crime to explain and predict various types of crime (for example, street crime, corporate crime, government crime, organized crime, and so forth) in different places at different times. Sociologist Charles Tittle (1939– ) argues that theories should be evaluated in relation to their breadth (their capacity to explain a wide range of criminal behaviors), comprehensiveness (their inclusion of all possible variables, especially those dealing with motivation, opportunity, ability, constraint, and absence of alternative motivation), precision (their ability to specify the operation, form, and contingencies of the causal relationships, such as the time interval be- tween cause and effect or the influence of extraneous or intervening factors), and depth (their ability to show how the causal variables are logically linked to form a meaningful and systematic whole).6

More powerful theories also should be able to explain crime at different levels of analysis. A more powerful theory, in other words, provides compelling explanations not only for why individuals commit various crimes but also for rates of crime among various groups. Theories of why individuals commit crimes are sometimes referred to as microtheories or process theories. Theories that explain rates of crime among various groups are sometimes called macrotheories or structural theories. Put somewhat differently, a better theory provides compelling explana- tions that integrate dispositional, situational, and systemic factors or biological, psychological, and sociological factors. A less powerful theory, by contrast, may provide an explanation at only one level of analysis (for instance, at the indivi- dual level or the group level, or with only biological or dispositional factors or only sociological or situational factors). Explanatory power is also called the gen- eralizability or scope of a theory, and theories often are judged by this criterion: The greater the explanatory power, generalizability, or scope of a theory, the better the theory.

As noted, scientific theories can be tested scientifically or empirically. How- ever, to call a theory unscientific is not necessarily to condemn it. People believe in many unscientific theories (e.g., God created the world in seven days), and those theories have consequences. To call a theory unscientific means only that the theory cannot claim what “good” scientific theories can claim—that the evi- dence of the senses makes it irrational to reject it. Yet, we should be skeptical about scientific observations because evidence from the senses might be wrong, as in the cases of hallucinations and optical illusions. We should not overestimate what science can offer.

6 C H A P T E R 1

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Scientific theories are tested through the processes of verification and falsifi- cation. Verification involves the observation and confirmation of a theoretical pro- position’s predicted relationship. For example, to verify the proposition that as poverty increases, crime increases, concomitant increases in poverty and crime must be observable and observed. Falsification involves disproving a proposition by the observation of negative examples. Thus, given the aforementioned propo- sition, if it were observed that in some place at some time, poverty increased, while crime decreased, then the proposition and theory of which it is a part would have to be questioned. Finding negative examples for a proposition does not necessarily condemn it, but it does suggest that the theory’s explanatory power is limited. The limitation may be a function of the unique historical cir- cumstances in which the theory is produced because most theories are products of their times. When evaluating theories, therefore, it is important to consider the historical context in which the theory emerged. Generally, a theory with greater explanatory power, generalizability, or scope is a more valuable theory.

For most social scientists, falsification is the more critical test of a theory. The principal reason for this is that theories can never be proven true, but they can be falsified. Theories can never be proven true because there is always the possibility that an observed relationship may be a function of some other, unconsidered factor. To illustrate, consider the very strong positive relationship between the sale of ice cream and the homicide rate: As the sale of ice cream increases, the homicide rate increases and vice versa. Does this mean that ice cream sales cause homicide? Of course not! What it means is that both the sale of ice cream and the homicide rate are related to a third factor that causes both to increase or decrease together. As one might guess, that third factor is the weather. As it gets hotter, both ice cream sales and homicides increase; when it gets cooler, both decrease. The relationship between the sale of ice cream and the homicide rate (and it is a real relationship) is called a spurious relationship. Because of the potential for spurious relationships, most social scientists consider falsification the hallmark of the scientific method.

When theory is evaluated, then, all that accurately can be said is that one theory is more or less compelling, believable, or convincing than another theory. What makes one theory more compelling, believable, or convincing than an- other theory is that the more compelling theory has successfully withstood more attempts to falsify it than has the less compelling theory. It is not accurate to say that a theory is true or false or right or wrong.

THE PROBLEM OF DEF INING CRIME

For many criminologists, an appropriate definition of crime remains an elusive goal. One problem is that many dangerous and harmful behaviors are not defined as crimes, while many less dangerous and less harmful behaviors are. Consider the different ways crime is defined, and the problems with defining crime.

The broadest definitions of crime are social definitions. A typical social defi- nition of crime is behavior that violates the norms of society—or, more simply,

A N I N T R O D U C T I O N T O T H E OR Y 7

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

antisocial behavior. A norm is any standard or rule regarding what human beings should or should not think, say, or do under given circumstances. Because social definitions of crime are broad, they are less likely than narrower definitions to exclude behaviors that ought to be included. Nevertheless, there are several pro- blems with social definitions of crime.

First, norms vary from group to group within a single society. There is no uniform definition of antisocial behavior. Take, for example, the acts involved in gambling, prostitution, abortion, and homosexual behavior. As current public debates indicate, there is much controversy in the United States over whether those acts should be crimes. Even with acts about which there seems to be a consensus, such as murder and rape, there is no agreement on what constitutes such acts. For example, if a patient dies from a disease contracted from a doctor who did not wash his or her hands before examining the patient, has the doctor committed murder? Or, if a man has sexual intercourse with an intoxicated woman who initially consents to the act but retracts her consent during the act, has the man committed rape? These examples illustrate the difficulty of deter- mining what, in fact, constitutes antisocial behavior, let alone crime.

Second, norms are always subject to interpretation. Each norm’s meaning has a history. Consider abortion, for example. For some people, abortion is the killing of a fetus or a human being. For other people, abortion is not killing, because, for them, human life begins at birth and not at conception. For the latter group, the abortion issue concerns women’s freedom to control their own bodies. For the former group, abortion constitutes an injustice to the helpless.

Third, norms change from time to time and from place to place. For exam- ple, the consumption of alcohol was prohibited in the United States during the 1920s and early 1930s but is only regulated today. Until the passage of the Harrison Act in 1914, it was legal in the United States to use opiates such as opium, heroin, and morphine without a doctor’s prescription. Such use is pro- hibited today. Casino gambling is allowed in some states but forbidden in other states. Prostitution is legal in a few counties in Nevada but illegal in the rest of the United States. Prior to the mid-1970s, a husband could rape his wife with impunity in all but a handful of states. Today, laws in every state prohibit a husband from raping or assaulting his wife.

In an attempt to avoid the problems with social definitions of crime, a legal definition of crime is commonly used in the United States. A typical legal defi- nition of crime is this: an intentional violation of the criminal law or penal code, committed without defense or excuse and penalized by the state. The major ad- vantage of a legal definition of crime, at least on the surface, is that it is narrower and less ambiguous than a social definition of crime. If a behavior violates the criminal law, then by definition it is a crime. However, although a legal defini- tion eliminates some of the problems with social definitions of crime, a legal definition of crime has problems of its own.

First, some behaviors prohibited by the criminal law arguably should not be. This problem of “overcriminalization” arises primarily in the area of so-called vic- timless crimes. Lists of victimless crimes typically include gambling, prostitution

8 C H A P T E R 1

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

involving consenting adults, homosexual acts between consenting adults, and the use of some illegal drugs, such as marijuana. Ultimately, whether those acts should or should not be prohibited by criminal law depends on whether they are truly victimless—an issue we will not debate here. Perhaps less controversial are some of the following illegal behaviors:

It is illegal to buy a bag of peanuts after sunset and before sunrise the next day in Alabama.

In California, it is illegal to trip horses for entertainment, to possess bear gallbladders, or to peel an orange in your hotel room.

It is illegal to throw shoes at weddings in Colorado.

In Connecticut, it is illegal to walk across the street on your hands.

Women in Florida may be fined for falling asleep under a hair dryer, as can the salon owner.

Idaho state law makes it illegal for a man to give his sweetheart a box of candy weighing less than 50 pounds.

It is illegal to take a bath in the wintertime in Indiana.

Kisses may last for as much as, but no more than, five minutes in Iowa.

In Michigan a woman isn’t allowed to cut her own hair without her husband’s permission.

It is illegal to slurp soup in New Jersey.

Beer and pretzels can’t be served at the same time in any bar or restaurant in North Dakota.

Violators in Oklahoma can be fined, arrested, or jailed for making ugly faces at a dog.

The state law of Pennsylvania prohibits singing in the bathtub.

In South Dakota, a woman over 50 is not allowed to go outside and strike up a conversation with a married man older than 20.

In Tennessee it is illegal to shoot any game other than whales from a moving automobile.

In Texas, it is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while standing.

It is an offense in Washington State to pretend your parents are rich.7

A second problem with a legal definition of crime is that for some behaviors prohibited by criminal law, the law is not routinely enforced. “Nonenforce- ment” is common for many white-collar and government crimes. It is also com- mon for blue laws, for example, those that require stores and other commercial establishments to be closed on Sundays. Many jurisdictions in the United States have blue laws, or they did have until recently. The principal problem with the nonenforcement of prohibitions is that it causes disrespect for the law. People come to believe that because criminal laws are not routinely enforced, there is no need to routinely obey them.

A N I N T R O D U C T I O N T O T H E OR Y 9

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

A third problem with a legal definition of crime is the problem of “undercriminalization.” That is, some behaviors that arguably should be prohib- ited by criminal law are not. Have you ever said to yourself that there ought to be a law against whatever it is you are upset about? Of course, most of the daily frustrations that people claim ought to be crimes probably should not be. Some people argue, however, that some very harmful and destructive actions or inac- tions that are not criminal should be. Examples include the government allowing employers (generally through the nonenforcement of laws) to maintain unsafe working conditions that cause employee deaths and injuries, and corporations’ intentional production of potentially hazardous products to maximize profits.8

In sum, competing definitions of crime exist and there are problems with all definitions. Consequently, students should be mindful of the way in which the- orists define crime and the implications those definitions have for theory and research.

WHY IS THEORY IMPORTANT , OR WHY STUDY

CRIME AND DEL I NQUENCY THEORY?

Everything people do in life is based on theory. However, many people often are not conscious or aware of the theory that they are using. Nevertheless, what- ever they do, they do for a reason. Similarly, everything that is done in criminal justice is based on theory, although most people are unaware of the theory on which those actions are based. Theory is studied, then, to explain and under- stand why people do what they do. People who are uninterested in theory are people who move blindly through life or, in the case of criminal justice, inter- vene in other people’s lives with only vague notions about why they are doing what they do.

This book focuses on theories of crime and delinquency. These theories are studied in an attempt to understand why people commit criminal and delinquent acts. The ultimate goal of this endeavor is to improve the quality of life, the effort toward which, it is assumed, can be aided by the reduction of socially harmful behaviors, whether legally defined as criminal or not. Absent a great amount of luck, however, that goal will be accomplished only by means of a clear theoretical understanding of the problem.

STUDY QUEST I ONS

1. What is theory?

2. What are the components of theory?

3. What are the philosophical assumptions on which all theories are based?

4. Can a theory be proven true? If yes, how? If not, why not?

10 C H A P T E R 1

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

5. How are theories judged or evaluated in relation to each other?

6. What are some problems with defining crime?

7. Why is theory important?

NOTES

1. Much of the discussion in this chapter is from Kerlinger (1964) and Babbie (1992).

2. See for example Wilson and Herrnstein (1985:436).

3. Gouldner (1971); see also Einstadter and Henry (1995), whose work focuses on these assumptions.

4. Montague (1953); see also Brennan (1953); Chisholm (1966); Christian (1977); Honer and Hunt (1968); Mead (1959).

5. Ritzer (1975:7).

6. Tittle (1995).

7. Loony Laws at www.loonylaws.com/ (accessed June 13, 2009).

8. For additional examples and further discussion of this issue, see Bohm (1993); Barak (1991); Barak and Bohm (1989); Coleman (1998); Friedrichs (1996); Simon (2006).

A N I N T R O D U C T I O N T O T H E OR Y 11

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S