54 Zach Espinoza – An Evaluation of Criminology: Mainstream Schools of Thought
Zach Espinoza (he/him) is a Sophomore from Noblesville, IN dual-majoring in Criminal Justice and Political Science. This work was prepared for Rena Holcomb’s W270 Fa 24, who states, “interesting and thorough.”
An Evaluation of Criminology: Mainstream Schools of Thought
In the realm of criminology, the concept of why crimes occur has long been deliberated. Through an examination of these competing perspectives, one may reach a conclusion about which factors (individual or societal) are most important for determining whether crime will or will not occur. Overall, previously evaluated research data suggests a popular acceptance that no “smoking gun” or ubiquitous theory can comprehensively explain why crime occurs. How a criminologist attempts to explain why crime occurs is the central delineating factor between academic theories (Prins & Reich, 2021; Piven, 1981; Shagufta, 2020; Nagin & Pogarsky, 2004; Smith et al., 2024). The prospect of theoretical subjectivity makes it difficult to reach a universal consensus regarding the most significant predictors of criminal or deviant behavior. The question remains, which factor – human agency, environmental determinism, or some combination of the two – is the most influential variable behind criminal incidents? By understanding societal attitudes towards crime and justice, we can foster informed discussions and develop effective policies that promote safer and more just communities.
Review of Relevant Literature
Criminal and deviant behavior – which subverts societal norms or harms a victim – is dynamic throughout space and time. As the definition of crime (and societal norms) is
determined by time and culture, what is and is not perceived as “subversive” is up to subjective interpretation (Prins & Reich, 2021; Piven, 1981). Classical theories focus on the individual characteristics of criminal offenders, sometimes referred to as the “foreground” of crime, their free will, and their thought process at the time of offending (Piven, 1981). Contemporary theories that prioritize the criminal foreground are predominantly considered to be neoclassical theories.
Neoclassical theorists agree with the classical assertion that the principal factor in any criminal offense is the decision to commit the crime, but most reject the extreme classical understanding of “free will” with an understanding that external circumstances impact (to some degree) the choices an individual can realistically make. Despite the presence of external factors, neoclassicalists would suggest that human agency – the ability to make choices based on circumstances – remains the primary influence on whether criminal/deviant behavior occurs (Shagufta, 2020; Nagin & Pogarsky, 2004; Smith et al., 2024).
What influences a person to make criminal decisions? Neoclassical theories that consider a psychological perspective may indicate that crime occurs because of individual cognitive behavioral patterns (Smith et al., 2024). Thought patterns can sometimes support or encourage criminal behavior by psychologically justifying an offender’s behavior or minimizing the consequences of said behavior. These “cognitive distortions” result from differences in the human maturation process, normalizing behavior based on synaptic connections made during the development of causal relationships. This distortion can lead to repeated criminal behavior as one is unable to recognize one’s own dysfunctional cognition (Smith et al., 2024). Cognitive behavioral therapy has led to reduced reoffending (recidivism), but its effectiveness varies based on the context of interventions and the underlying characteristics of the offender (Smith et al., 2024; Nagin & Pogarsky, 2004).
These criminogenic thought patterns are posited as particularly influential in determining whether criminal behavior will or will not occur because of how humans perform “behavioral calculus” (Nagin & Pogarsky, 2004). Before committing to a decision, people often consider a large “web” or network of factors to determine if their decision will result in beneficial consequences or detrimental ones. Neoclassical proponents suggest that processes of mental calculus are the same, whether one is committing a criminal act or a casual one (Smith et al., 2024; Nagin & Pogarsky, 2004). Moreover, these theories assert that individuals who struggle with a lack of impulse control are more likely to engage in criminal and deviant behavior. This lack of self-control is, therefore, a contender for the most predominant predictor of criminal behavior, a point originally posited by Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) General Theory of Crime.
Additional considerations for individual levels of “psychopathic characteristics” may further highlight the role of agency in determining criminal behavior (Shagufta, 2020). The extent to which individuals exhibit callous traits – such as low empathy and high egocentrism – impacts how they respond to societal influences (Shagufta, 2020). Individuals who possess prominent levels of callousness are more likely to engage in deviant behavior, especially if they belong to a group of friends that engage in and normalize criminal or deviant behavior. This theory effectively elucidates the complex relationship between individual criminal(s) and the external factors that lead to incidents of crime (Piven, 1981; Shagufta, 2020; Nagin & Pogarsky, 2004; Smith et al., 2024).
The external, structural factors – the contextual situation surrounding criminal events – are called the “background of crime” (Piven, 1981). Notably, theories that focus on the individual factors that predicate crime often neglect the social and environmental conditions that lead up to it. Actual criminal behavior is often a result of frequent engagement in deviant behavior. Often perceived as less criminal by society at large, deviant behavior can serve as a politically motivated form of resisting unjust societal power structures (Piven, 1981).
Considering the case of modern civil rights movements, deviant behavior can even function as a catalyst for positive social change. This suggests a relationship between an individual’s criminal motivations and how they perceive their institutional autonomy (Piven, 1981; Smith et al., 2024). These theories often stem from the broader labeling theory, which suggests that socially labeling an individual as deviant increases their likelihood of participating in criminal behavior. From this perspective, individuals may engage in crime as a form of social protest: “If they believe that I am a criminal, then I will show them a criminal.”
Socioeconomic conditions additionally contribute to social structural theories about why individuals commit crimes. While many theories centered around poverty (as a predictor of crime) have widely fallen out of favor in recent decades, the concept of social disorganization has remained stalwart (Walsh & Jorgensen, 2019b). Originating from the Chicago School of Ecology in the 20s and 30s, structural proponents of social disorganization maintain that communities with weak social institutions and low “social capital” are more likely to experience elevated levels of crime (Prins & Reich, 2021; Piven, 1981). This results from individuals within the community having less access to positive social networks that strengthen/reinforce the presence of moral collective norms (Prins & Reich, 2021). Chicagoan theorists most often suggested that this breakdown in collective efficacy resulted from poor social cohesion amongst a culturally diverse community who live together because of their lower economic class.
Many contemporary tools for criminogenic risk assessment used by law enforcement employ some formula to conclude a community’s level of “disorganization” when determining which areas “need more policing.” However, modern analysis of criminogenic risk assessment technology highlights that these formulas unintentionally “perpetuate biases and inequalities” (Prins & Reich, 2021). Failing to account for broader macro-level structural factors frequently results in less equitable applications of the law in marginalized communities (Prins & Reich, 2021).
Research & Analysis
While it would undoubtedly be more manageable to purport that there is a single factor – some genetic marker or environmental strain – that indicates a crime will occur, that is simply not the case. As criminology has evolved throughout its scientific history, both classical and deterministic theories have become more accepting of the complexity surrounding criminal events. Classical theories used to maintain that human decision-making was the only factor in crime, which often led to the barbaric punitive measures outlined in humanity’s earliest legal documents. In contrast, deterministic theories historically suggested that free will was little more than a myth, leading them to assume crime is a result of the human nature of social institutions, with little consideration for the role of the individual. It is interesting to note that modern adaptations and extensions of these conflicting schools of thought always contend that both individuals and their environment have some level of influence on criminal behavior.
Analyzed data was gathered through an exploratory survey, which delved into public perceptions regarding criminogenic risk factors and effective crime prevention strategies. Despite a limited sample size, several noteworthy trends emerged that identify directions for future investigation. The responses to this survey highlight a prevailing belief that the combined influences of both human agency and environmental influences impact the likelihood that one will engage in criminal behavior. This data aligns with contemporary criminological theories reviewed earlier, recognizing the complex interplay between both ‘foreground’ and ‘background’ factors.
When asked to identify which factors they believe most contribute to crime, 100% of respondents reported they believed a “lack of education” and “substance abuse” were primary criminogenic factors. This is an interesting insight that may result from the overwhelming education level of the respondents, but “lack of education” is up for subjective interpretation. There is academic evidence that supports the theory that lower average levels of “education achieved” (e.g., an area with a high percentage of people without a high school degree) are associated with higher levels of crime. However, the cause of that consolidation effect has yet to be determined. Substance abuse, however, is often associated with criminogenic traits in many criminological theories – ranging from mainstream to psychosocial and biosocial theories – as it encompasses both individual and environmental influences.
When explicitly asked to rank these factors in question four, poverty was most frequently ranked as the “most influential” criminogenic factor. Fifty-six percent of respondents placed poverty at rank number one, with the remaining forty-four percent placing poverty as the second most influential. Education level placed in rank four (33%) and rank five (45%) most frequently – indicating that while respondents all view it as “influential,” a majority believe it to be less important than other environmental/individual factors.
In keeping with our earlier findings surrounding what respondents believe inspires crimes, 67% reported they believe that associating with criminal/deviant friends or family
increases an individual’s likelihood of engaging in criminal/deviant behavior. This belief aligns with deterministic perspectives, especially the social structural traditions pioneered by Chicagoan ecologists. A similar sentiment is seen regarding the influence of peers, as respondents indicate they believe being pressured by criminal peers increases the likelihood that someone will engage in criminal behavior. Again, many scholars suggest that this is true for both violent and non-violent behaviors – though in our question, the nature relative to criminal behavior was intentionally unspecified to preserve subjectivity.
Overall, most of the data suggests that the respondents believe there is no “smoking gun” (pardon the pun) or ubiquitous theory to explain crime. Most modern scholars agree that people can only make decisions available within the context of their environment. Moreover, even when choice is a factor, many fail to consider the neurological context of emotional reinforcement (and the power of operant conditioning).
Interestingly, while respondents acknowledged the role of individual choices, they overwhelmingly attributed crime to social and environmental factors such as poverty, lack of education, and substance abuse. Beyond these assertions regarding the cause of crime, respondents to our survey heavily emphasized rehabilitative and preventative measures over increasingly severe punitive measures. The results signify a preference for deterrence that addresses individual/community level issues, rather than merely punishing the offender.
Conclusions
While there are many similarities and differences to draw between theories, the most significant difference lies in the “scope” or “level of analysis” that each theory employs. Critical theories – like Marxist and Feminist theories, for example – tend to focus on the broadest scope, evaluating crime by considering the impact of sociopolitical structures and institutional contexts. Mainstream theories – the classical and deterministic varieties that have been assessed herein – have a narrower scope than the (meta-analytic) critical ones but still consider macro-level perspectives like the nature of human agency or the impact of gene-environment interactions. The theories that are narrowest in scope, focusing on unique personal and developmental factors influencing a person’s propensity to engage in criminal/deviant behaviors, tend to be the most effective for analyzing the complexities that lead to socially subversive actions.
Examination of mainstream theories proves that (at this level of analysis) there is no one answer to what causes crime. Employing the theories we have learned like tools in a toolbox when addressing specific or individual cases, however, seems to garner the most academically valuable results. Beyond that, if scientific research (e.g., longitudinal studies, large datasets, or self-report surveys) illuminates a point of focus, eliminating as many variables as possible (by narrowing the scope) can lead to helpful and practical restorative/preventative implications. The results of our criminogenic survey act as a preliminary exploration of public perceptions of crime. The data underscores the need for continued research that considers the multifaceted nature of criminogenic risk and the importance of social crime prevention strategies.
References:
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. In Stanford University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503621794
Nagin, D. S., & Pogarsky, G. (2004). Time and Punishment: Delayed Consequences and Criminal Behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20(4), 295-317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-004-5866-1
Piven, F. F. (1981). Deviant Behavior and the Remaking of the World. Social Problems, 28(5), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.2307/800219
Prins, S. J., & Reich, A. (2021). Criminogenic risk assessment: A meta-review and critical analysis. Punishment & Society, 23(4), 578-604.
https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745211025751
Shagufta, S. (2020). Criminal Friends’ Influence on Criminal Behavior of Adult Offenders Moderated by Psychopathic Traits. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 14(2), 108-116.
https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/criminal-friends-influence-on-behavior- adult/docview/2434410730/se-2
Smith, A., Roberts, A., Krzemieniewska‐Nandwani, K., Eggins, E., Cook, W., Fox, C., Maruna, S., Wallace, S., & Szifris, K. (2024). Revisiting the effectiveness of cognitive‐ behavioural therapy for reducing reoffending in the criminal justice system: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1425
Walsh, A., & Jorgensen, C. (2019b). Criminology: The Essentials [ePub]. SAGE Publications. 100-115.
Appendix A:
Link to Survey – https://iu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_5v9d892Bgq3hfCu