NCJ Number
46542
Date Published
1978
Length
5 pages
Annotation
THE HISTORY OF BIOLOGICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, AND SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO DETERMINING THE CAUSES OF CRIME IS REVIEWED.
Abstract
AS OF 1876, AMERICAN CRIMINOLOGISTS THOUGHT THAT THE CAUSES OF CRIME WERE TO BE FOUND IN THE BIOLOGY OF THE OFFENDER. SINCE THEN, CRIMINOLOGY HAS PLACED THESE CAUSES IN THE OFFENDER'S PSYCHOLOGY AND, LATER, IN THE SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ASPECTS OF HIS ENVIRONMENT. MOST RECENTLY, ATTENTION HAS MOVED AWAY FROM THE ATTRIBUTES OF THE OFFENDER AND TOWARD THE ATTRIBUTES OF THOSE IN A POSITION TO JUDGE OR DEFINE THE OFFENDER. MAJOR SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT IN AMERICAN CRIMINOLOGY HAVE INCLUDED THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT AND FEEBLEMINDEDNESS THEORIES, THE MULTIPLE FACTOR APPROACH, DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION, OPPORTUNITY OR STRAIN THEORY, LABELING-CONFLICT THEORIES, AND CONTROL THEORY. BIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO EXPLAINING CRIME WERE EASY TO TEST IN PRINCIPLE, AND THEIR EVENTUAL DEMISE IS INTERPRETED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR FAILURE TO SURVIVE EMPIRICAL TESTS. A DECLINE IN TESTABILITY ACCOMPANIED THE RISE OF THE SOCIOLOGICAL VIEW. HENCE THE FIELD OF CRIMINOLOGY EXPERIENCED A LENGTHY PERIOD OF THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT VIRTUALLY INDEPENDENT OF RESEARCH. WITH THE ADVENT OF LARGE-SCALE RESEARCH BY SOCIOLOGISTS, SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES WERE TESTED, AND THEORIES MORE FIRMLY GROUNDED IN EMPIRICAL FINDINGS BECAME POSSIBLE. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)