Criminological Theories Assessment and Personal Criminological Theory
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2008) describes criminology as “the scientific study
of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment”. The definition suggests
that criminology has a more of a social basis, while some criminal theories posit that crime
may have causal factors other than social. This essay aims to briefly cover the various
criminological theories in vogue and offer the author’s own assessment as to which theory
deserves greater credibility.
The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical
approach theorized that since all humans were endowed with free will and equal rights, “crime
was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen &
Agnew, 2006, p. 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had
not biologically ‘evolved’ enough and it also hinted that some are born criminals. Yet another
early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could
be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago
school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs
because of the breakdown of social cohesion in the neighborhoods. Others theorized that
criminal behavior is learned through association with anti-social elements. Merton asserts that
lack of economic opportunity results in the non-realization of the ‘American Dream’ which in
turn forces people to a life of crime to compensate for the lack of opportunity (De Melo, 2001,
p. 15).
In short, crime had a socio-economic dimension. Others say that socio-economic disparity
cause ‘general strain’ which leads to criminal behavior. The control theory posits that lack of
self or social control results in criminal behavior. Some theorists giving a modern twist to the
classical theory, call a crime a result of rational analysis of ‘Cost-Benefit’ vis-à-vis possible
punishment. Others look at crime from a more operative prism that standard human routines
make them vulnerable targets at times when they are alone. Theorists also surmise that
criminals once labeled as such, continue in that role as the stigma becomes lifelong from which
they have no escape. The socialist theorists blame ‘Capitalist’ markets with their social
inequities for the rise in crime. The gender-based theory states that crimes occur because men
wish to show power over women and thus resort to force. Developmental theorists opine that
crime has developmental causes that progress from before birth right through a criminals’ life
where the environment plays an important role in determining whether the individual can
escape from a life of crime or not. Some others take an integrated approach wherein the basic
postulates of some of the theories are put together to explain that criminal behavior occurs in a
sequential manner.
Having studied the various theories, the author of this essay opines that an integration of the
theory of social disorganization, lack of sufficient socio-economic opportunities together with
the effects of the environment are the main causes for criminal behavior. Modern
Neurobiological studies have sufficiently proven that all humans are not necessarily ‘born
equal’, thus debunking the classical and the positivist approaches. For example, behavioral
psychologists have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to
“incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). There is some
neurobiological truth in stating that injury to the brain either through physical trauma or
through biological defects may cause a loss of control over which humans will as no control.
The neurobiological concepts are applicable for specific cases, but not the vast majority of
criminals who populate America’s prisons.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, as of 30 June 2007,” 2,299,116 prisoners
were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails” (Bureau Of Justice Statistics para 1). Most
of these crimes are committed by people out of poverty and not so much as through the need
for affluence. It must also be noted that the origins of most gangs and drug mafia started in the
back alleys of low-income neighborhoods where the opportunity to earn the ‘honest buck’ was
not sufficient. It is equally true that the breakdown of traditional family structures has led to a
lack of suitable role models and advice by the elders to moderate the youth which has led to a
rise in crime. The logic that the capitalist market with its social inequities leads to crime is not
borne out by the fact that the same capitalist markets exist in Europe where the crime graph is
much lower than the United States. In the opinion of the author, the gender-based, feminism-
inspired criminological theory has no empirical evidence to support its validity.
Thus the personal criminological theory of the author surmises that a breakdown of the
traditional family system, lack of adequate job opportunity, and poverty are the breeding
grounds for crime to take root. Once a negative environment has been created, young adults
who are yet to develop mature thinking get influenced by the elder criminals and take up a life
of crime. The correctional environment, with most U.S. prisons filled to over twice the capacity,
further accentuates negative reinforcements of criminal behavior leading to creating more
hardened criminals rather than reducing them. People are rarely ‘born’ criminals but are made
criminals by circumstances, environment, and socio-economic conditions.
