CRIMINOLOGYThen, as now, the main alternatives were ‘‘get
tough’’ deterrence strategies that assumed that
potential criminals could be frightened into com-
pliance with the law, versus strategies that would
reduce the number of offenses by addressing the
root causes of crime. We know far more about
crime and criminals today than criminologists of
the late nineteenth and early twentieth century
knew, yet we continue the same debate, little
changed from the one in which Ferri participated in.
The debates today pit those espousing rational
choice theories of crime (control and deterrence
theories being the most popular versions) against
what still might best be called positivistic theories. To
be sure, contemporary positivistic criminology is
considerably different from the theories of Gall
and Lombroso. Modern criminologists do not
explain law-violating behavior using the shapes of
heads and body forms. Yet there are still those who
argue that biological traits can explain criminal
behavior (Wilson and Herrenstein 1985; Mednick
1977), and still others who focus on psychological
characteristics. But most modern criminologists
are sociologists who focus on how social structures
and culture explain criminal behavior. What all of
these modern positivists have in common with
their predecessors Gall, Lombroso, and company,
is that they share a belief that human behavior,
including crime, is not simply a consequence of
individual choices. Behavior, they argue, is ‘‘deter-
mined’’ at least in part by biological, psychological,
or social forces. The goal of modern positivist
criminologists is to unravel the combination of
forces that make some people more likely than
others to commit crimes.
Today the research of sociological criminologists
focuses on three questions: What is the nature of
crime? How do we explain crime? What are the
effects of societies’ attempts to control crime?
Approaches to answering these questions vary
greatly, as do the answers offered by criminologists.
For example the first question, what is the nature
of crime, can be answered by detailing the charac-
teristics of people who commit crimes. Alterna-
tively, one can challenge the very definition of
what crime, and consequently criminals, are. In an
attempt to answer this question, some criminologists
focus on how much crime there is. But of course,
even this is a difficult question to answer because
there are many ways to count crime, with each type
offering different and sometimes seemingly con-
flicting answers.WHAT IS THE NATURE OF CRIME?Simply defining crime can be problematic. We can
easily define crime legally: Crime is a violation of
the criminal law. The simplicity of this definition is
its virtue, but also its weakness. On the positive
side, a legalistic definition clearly demarcates what
will be counted as crime—those actions defined by
the state as a violation. However, it is not as clear as
to whom will be defined as criminals. Do we count
as criminals those who violate the law and are not
arrested? What about those who are arrested and
not convicted? Some criminologists would argue
that even an act that may appear to be criminal
cannot be called ‘‘crime’’ until a response or evalua-
tion has been made of that act. For example, how
can we know if an offensive act is a crime if there
has been no evaluation of the intent of the perpe-
trator? In Anglo-American law, without criminal
intent, an offensive action is not considered a
criminal action. Other critics of a legalistic defini-
tion of crime argue that it is an overly limited
conception that too narrowly truncates criminological
inquiry; a legalistic definition of crime accepts the
state’s definition of ‘‘legal’’ and equates that with
‘‘legitimate.’’ Critical criminologists (Quinney 1974;
Chambliss 1975; Taylor, Walton, and Young 1973)
argue that we should ask questions about the
creation of law such as whose interests are being
served by classifying a particular behavior as ‘‘ille-
gal.’’ Questions such as these tend to be ignored if
we simply accept a legalistic definition. Indeed, the
particular definition used influences the kind of
questions criminologists ask. When a legalistic
definition is used, criminologists tend to ask ques-
tions such as: ‘‘How much crime occurs?’’ ‘‘Who
commits rime?’’ ‘‘Why are some people criminal?’’
If a broader conception of crime is the focus (i.e.,
one that addresses the rule-makers as well as the
rule-breakers), then one might ask these same
questions, but add others: ‘‘Where does the law
come from?’’ ‘‘Why are some offensive acts consid-
ered crimes while others are not?’’ ‘‘Whose inter-
ests do the laws serve?’’ This is not a debate that
will ever be resolved. Students of criminology
should understand however, that the definition of
crime they employ will have important implica-
tions for the kinds of questions they will ask, the