Encyclopedia of Sociology

CRIME, THEORIES OF

classification efforts, categorization of lawbreak-
ers into types is a separate activity. While it may be
possible to identify groupings such as predatory
property crime, it many not be true that individual
offenders specialize in that form of crime, hence it
may be incorrect to speak of ‘‘predatory offend-
ers’’ as a type of criminal. Most offender classifica-
tion systems have been deficient in one respect or
another (Gibbons 1985), but the most serious flaw
is that they are oversimplified. Researchers have
discovered that many offenders engage in a fairly
diverse collection of offenses over their criminal
‘‘careers’’ rather than being crime specialists such
as ‘‘burglars,’’ ‘‘robbers,’’ or ‘‘drug dealers’’ (Chaiken
and Chaiken 1982).

THEORIES OF CRIME

The number of theories regarding particular forms
of crime is extensive, thus they cannot all be
reviewed here (for a review of many of them, see
Gibbons 1994). Additional to those theories men-
tioned previously, a sampling of the more impor-
tant ones would include the routine activities expla-
nation of predatory property crime. Lawrence
Cohen and Marcus Felson (1979) contend that
predatory property crime involves three major
elements: the supply of motivated offenders, the
supply of suitable targets, and the absence of
capable guardians. In other words, these crimes
are carried out by persons with criminal motives,
but the incidence of such offenses also depends
upon the number of opportunities to burglarize
homes or to rob persons. Also, the number of
burglaries from one community to another is in-
fluenced by the degree to which residents in local
areas act as guardians by maintaining surveillance
over homes in their neighborhoods or by taking
other crime-control steps. This theory takes note
of the fact that criminal opportunities have in-
creased in the United States in recent decades at
the same time that capable guardianship has de-
clined, due principally to changes in employment
patterns. In particular, the number of families in
which both adult members work during the day
has grown markedly, as has the number of em-
ployed, single-parent families. Research evidence
lends considerable support to this theory (Cohen
and Felson 1979).

Research evidence also indicates that income
inequality is related to predatory property crime

(Braithwaite 1979; Carroll and Jackson 1983). Fur-

ther, Leo Carroll and Pamela Jackson (1983) argue

that the routine activities and income inequality

arguments are interrelated. They suggest that the

labor market trends identified in the former have

led to increased crime opportunities, declines in

guardianship, and heightened levels of income

inequality.

THEORIES OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

While theories about crime patterns and rates

have been developed principally by sociological

criminologists, representatives of a number of

disciplines have endeavored to identify factors

and processes that explain the involvement or

noninvolvement of specific individuals in lawbreaking.

Three basic approaches can be noted: the biogenic-

sociobiogenic, psychogenic, and sociogenic orien-

tations. Biogenic-sociobiogenic views attribute the gene-

sis or causes of lawbreaking, entirely or in part, to

constitutional and hereditary factors, while psycho-

genic perspectives often contend that lawbreakers

exhibit personality problems to which their illegal

conduct is a response. By contrast, sociologists

have most often advanced sociological theories, argu-

ing that criminal behavior is learned in a socializa-

tion process by individuals who are neither bio-

logically nor psychologically flawed. Also, some

persons have constructed theories that combine

or integrate elements of these three approach-

es, one case being James Wilson and Richard

Herrnstein’s (1985) argument that the behavior of

criminals has genetic and constitutional roots and

that offenders tend to be more mesomorphic in

body build, less intelligent, and more burdened

with personality defects than their noncriminal

peers. Wilson and Herrnstein also contend that

various social factors such as unemployment, com-

munity influences, and the like play some part in

criminality.

Three generalizations can be made about bio-

logical theories: First, conclusive evidence sup-

porting these arguments has not yet been pro-

duced; second, biological factors cannot be ruled

out on the basis of the empirical evidence current-

ly on hand; and third, if biological factors are

involved in criminality, they are probably inter-

twined with social and psychological influences

(Trasler 1987; Fishbein 1990).