CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES 1
Criminological Theories
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date
CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES 2
Criminological theories Explaining what Motivate the Criminals to Commit the Act and
how those Theories Challenge one Another
Crime is unacceptable or unlawful behavior of harming others punishable by the state or
a country based on the location and country of origin. The cause of the crime or criminal acts has
for many years been investigated by several scholars each highlighting what they found to be a
convincing cause. Surprisingly no commonality from different scholars on the possible cause of
crime was identified. Different theories from different philosophers have tried to explain the
potential causes of crime. Theories such as the rational choice theory, biological and biosocial
theories, social learning theory, and labeling theory have all explained different causes of crime.
The rational choice theory States that a choice to commit a crime is arrived at after one
evaluates the cost and rewards received after committing a crime. This theory assumes that one
has to logically judge the benefits and costs or harms associated with the crime before
committing it (Zhao et al., 2021). This theory contradicts biological and biosocial theories, which
assume that people born criminals can not be deterred from committing crimes. The
contradiction of rational choice theory is widened by the fact that biological and biosocial
theories assume an interplay between intellectual levels, testosterone, and personal social
environment (Du, 2019). The rational choice theory and biological and biosocial theories lack
commonality on what triggers or motivates an individual to commit a crime; their assumption is
parallel. Had biological and biosocial theories omitted the genetic deposition aspect and adopted
logical judgment in committing a crime, the rational choice theory and biological and biosocial
theories would have been affirmed.
Social learning theory assumes that people decide to engage or not to engage in criminal
behaviors based on the environment or people who surround them. This theory suggests that
CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES 3
criminal behaviors are learned through the people we interact with daily and can be dealt with by
developing a society or environment that does not tolerate criminal behaviors (Roberts &
Rollins, 2020). This theory has some similarity with biological and biosocial theories, which
assumes that some genetic deposition, in addition to social environment or behaviors, determines
people's desire to join or not to join criminal activities (Du, 2019). The two theories affirm that
the social environment is one of the main factors that shape people's approach to crime. Many of
the young people joining the criminal activities are helped by those who live near them.
Labeling theory assumes that people are labeled bad, troublemakers, or thugs based on
arrest or incarceration records from the authorities, an assumption that is considered wrong.
Many people have joined criminal activities as a result of being labeled by those who stay with
criminals (Opp, 2020). Many, at last, opt to become criminals due to the consistent labeling of
criminals or troublemakers by their relatives and close friends. There are slight similarities
between labeling theory and rational choice theory in that, in both theories, an individual has to
make a choice in whether to commit a crime or not. In rational choice theory, a choice to commit
a crime is arrived at after one evaluates the cost and rewards received after committing a crime,
likewise in Labeling theory, a choice to commit a crime or become a criminal is arrived at after
being labeled a troublemaker or a thug (Payne et al., 2019). One has the decision to choose to
associate or not to associate himself or herself on criminal matters. Generally, in the two theories,
there is space for choice either to commit a crime or not.
Biological and Biosocial theories assume that people are born criminals, meaning that it
is an inborn trait within them. These theories assume that inborn traits, together with the social
environment, affect one behavior on committing a crime (Motz et al., 2020). The social
environment factors, which are learned when combined with the inborn traits of crime, make a
CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES 4
person become one of the dangerous criminals and thus end up committing crimes. This theory,
to a greater extent, contradicts the labeling theory, which assumes people become criminals or
commit crimes because of being labeled thugs or criminals due to their previous criminal
records. In labeling, there is no aspect of an inborn trait or genetic deposition which rules in
Biological and Biosocial theories, and people end up committing crimes merely because of being
labeled criminals (Payne et al., 2019). Had Biological and Biosocial theories ignored the aspect
of genetic deposition, a similarity of choice in becoming a crime would have been found.
In conclusion, a great contradiction exists between rational choice theory and biological
and biosocial theories. The rational choice theory of logical judgment is employed to determine
whether to commit a crime or not, but in biological and biosocial theories, genetic depositions
accompanied by the social environment are the main determinants of anyone committing a
crime. To a certain percentage, similarities exist between social learning theory and biological
and biosocial theories in that the two affirm that social environment is one of the main factors
that shape people's approach to crime. Labeling theory and rational choice theory have slight
similarities in that a choice is made when arriving at a crime. Finally, Biological and Biosocial
theories contradict labeling theory in that inborn trait or genetic deposition drives one to commit
a crime. In Biological and Biosocial theories, but in labeling theory, people choose to commit
crimes due to continuous labeling over criminal matters.
CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES 5
References
Du, Y. (2019). Developing an integrated biosocial theory to understand juvenile delinquency:
from the social, cognitive, affective, and moral (SCAM) perspectives.>International
Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics,>6(2), 897-903.
Motz, R. T., Barnes, J. C., Caspi, A., Arseneault, L., Cullen, F. T., Houts, R., ... & Moffitt, T. E.
(2020). Does contact with the justice system deter or promote future delinquency?
Results from a longitudinal study of British adolescent twins.>Criminology,>58(2), 307-
335.
Opp, K. D. (2020). 3 Rational Choice Theory, the Model of Frame Selection and Other Dual-
Process Theories. A Critical Comparison.>Advances in the sociology of trust and
cooperation: theory, experiments, and field studies, 41.
Payne, B. K., Hawkins, B., & Xin, C. (2019). Using labeling theory as a guide to examine the
patterns, characteristics, and sanctions given to cybercrimes.>American journal of
criminal justice,>44, 230-247.
Roberts, D. E., & Rollins, O. (2020). Why sociology matters to race and biosocial
science.>Annual Review of Sociology,>46, 195-214.
Zhao, J., Wang, X., Zhang, H., & Zhao, R. (2021). Rational choice theory applied to an
explanation of juvenile offender decision making in the Chinese setting.>International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,>65(4), 434-457.
