IEJS > Survey of CJ > Chapter 3

Survey of Criminal Justice

Chapter Three

Criminological Theory

Thus far, the term theory has been used in a commonplace sense of the word.  This definition of theory is simply an explanation of something.  From this point forward, the term theory will mean scientific theory.  The most important aspect of a scientific theory is the necessity of empirical validity.  To what extent can the theory be supported by empirical findings?  This is the measure of a scientific theory's worth.  Science requires that theory be based on observable, measurable fact.  By its very definition, natural law cannot be a valid scientific theory.  It requires a belief in something that cannot be measured, and is thus invalid as science.  The study of criminality as a social science is known as criminology.

Deterrence Theory

The birth of modern criminology came where the previous discussion of legal philosophy ended, with the eighteenth century writings of Bentham and Cesare Beccaria.  Both of these utilitarian thinkers were more interested in legal and penal reform than with developing theories of human behavior.  These thinkers are now considered the classical school of criminology, even though they were decidedly philosophical in their writings.  This is because their theories, while not rigorously scientific by modern standards, have implications still today. As previously discussed, actions are taken as the result of exercising free will--the criminal calculus.  The deterrence of crime, then, required that punishment cause harm sufficient to outweigh the pleasure gained by the criminal act. 

In modern Criminology, this is referred to as deterrence theory.  Both Beccaria and Bentham saw a relationship between surety and the effectiveness of punishment.  Deterrence is thought to work in two ways.  First, is specific deterrence.  This is where a specific individual, once punished for a crime, will not offend again because he or she has come to fear the surety and severity of punishment that will follow another criminal act.  Second is general deterrence.  This is where the punishment of offenders serves as an example to the public, instilling in them a fear of punishment.  This fear deters them from criminality.  Deterrence theory has fallen out of favor with most behavioral scientists because it is not supported by empirical studies.  However, it remains the theory under which most aspects of our modern criminal justice system operate. 

Most empirical studies have shown that severity of the penalty has little deterrent effect on crime.  Capital punishment has been shown not to have a significant effect on homicide rates.  Some researchers have reported a correlation between perceived certainty of punishment and criminal behavior, but these correlations tend to be weak.  Rational choice theory (the criminal calculus) is considered by most criminologists to be an extension of deterrence theory, and has little empirical support.  The expansion of these theories has, however, shown some empirical validity.

Such an expansion of deterrence theory and rational choice theory is the routine activities theory explained by Felson and Cohen[1].  Later versions of this theory were referred to as opportunity theory.  The main proposition of this theory is that the rate of criminal victimization increases when there is a person (or persons) likely to commit a crime, a vulnerable target present, and guardians are not present to deter the crime.  These guardians can be either formal, such as the police, or informal, such as a homeowner's presence.  This theory is the basis of "target hardening," which seeks to reduce crime by decreasing the vulnerability of targets.  Due to the complexity of modeling it, this theory has not been put under the light of full empirical testing.  Still, attempts to do so measuring the primary variables indirectly have shown support for the theory.

The first major break with the classical school's monopoly on the study of crime was the emergence of the biological positivists.  The emergence of positivism came at a time when Western society was in a state of rapid change.  The political freedoms espoused by legal and political reformers translated into intellectual freedom for the positivists.  Darwin's theory of evolution also had a dramatic effect on the science and philosophy of the day.  Social thinkers began to apply evolutionary principals to society.  Western societies represented the apex of this evolution, and all others were inferior.  The new science of anthropology also exerted influence on positivist criminology.  Criminologists capitalized on anthropological findings about other cultures and developed more expansive theories of human behavior.  Positivism is a broad term that simply means that inquiry is conducted using the traditional methods of science.  The perspective is not as important as the methodology. 

The major premise of positivist thought is that societies exist as a matrix of causes and effects.  Attributes of these societies can be revealed through careful and systematic observation.  Positivists generally believe that the scientific aims of prediction, explanation and control can be applied to social phenomena such as crime, and the world can thus be made a better place through science.  Another element of positivism is that abnormalities either within the person or within society cause crime.  These abnormalities can be identified by the comparison of what is normal to what is abnormal.  This model suggests that criminality is not a moral defect, but a malady that can be cured.  Thus, criminal sanctions should not be used to punish under the doctrine of lex talionis, but rather to provide treatment so that the offender may safely be returned to society.  

The most important of the early biological theorists was Cesare Lombroso, who published The Criminal Man in 1876.  Lombroso believed that certain physical features identified prisoners as "born criminals."  The bodily constitution of the born criminal causes him to violate the law.  Lombroso theorized that born criminals were an "atavism," or a genetic throwback to earlier stages of human development.  The born criminal possessed the same physical, metal and instinctual makeup as primitive man.  The born criminal was easily identified by certain physical characteristics known as "stigmata."  Among these were asymmetry of the face and head, large ears, large lips, receding chin, twisted nose, large cheekbones, long arms, excessive wrinkling of the skin, and extra digits.  Lombroso also recognized two other types of criminal: the "insane criminal" and the "criminaloid."  Like the born criminal, the insane criminal could not control his criminal behavior, but did not have the telltale stigmata to easily identify them. The criminaloid is motivated by passions and emotions to commit crimes under certain circumstances.  The born criminal was the most dangerous and irredeemable type. 

The concept of the born criminal remained the centerpiece of Lombroso's theory, even after he added social, economic, and political conditions as factors in crime later in his career.  The primary interest in Lombroso's work is not the validity of his theory, but the fact that he sparked a blitz of biological theorization about crime.  Vold and Bernard[2] maintain that any theory that refers to inherited traits, physical abnormalities, the biological inferiority of certain categories of people, body constitution, and biological defects and malfunctions that predispose an individual toward crime can be traced back to the theory of Lombroso. 

The first major attack on Lombroso's theory came in 1913 when Charles Goring published The English Convict.    This was a report of his findings from a lengthy study of prison inmates using the most sophisticated medical and statistical techniques of his day.  His study considered the relationships between 37 physical characteristics and behavior.  He found no statistically significant relationships.  He found no support for Lombroso's theory that there is a relationship between stigmata and criminal behavior.  While he successfully disproved Lombroso's theory in the eyes of most of the criminologists of his day, he held on to the notion that criminals are born with criminal traits.  His theory dismissed the possibility of social factors and espoused the inherit inferiority of criminals.  Goring did, however, find statistically significant differences between criminals and law-abiding citizens on body stature and weight.  Prisoners were shorter and lighter than upstanding citizens were.  He also judged them to be of lower intelligence, but had no objective measure of this.  

Just as Lombroso was attacked by Goring, so too was Goring attacked.  Hooten, an American anthropologist, published Crime and the Man in 1939 in which he assaulted both Lombroso's methods and conclusions.  Hooten's study was an elaborate examination of over 17,000 subjects in several states.  He, as his predecessors had done, concluded that criminals are biologically inferior and that social factors played an insignificant part in criminality.  Criminals were so by nature, not nurturing.  Sociologists, offended by the previous authors lack of attention to social, economic, and environmental factors successfully destroyed biological theory on methodological grounds.   By the 1950s, biological theories of criminality had been thoroughly discredited and disappeared from the literature.  By that time, biological theory was regarded by most criminologists as unfounded and insignificant.  Biological theories did, however, make a comeback starting in the 1980s[3].   These modern theories tend to focus on complex interactions between biological and social factors.  The myth of the born criminal may be dead, but there is still a raging debate as to whether certain biological factors cause predispositions toward crime.

Psychoanalytical theories and personality theories have also been developed to explain criminality.  The basic premise of the psychoanalytic approach is that criminal behavior in itself is unimportant.  Criminal behavior is merely the manifestation of the psychic conflict between the Id, Ego, and Superego within the criminal.  Some traumatic event early in the criminal's psychic development has caused this malady.  Personality theories provide similar causes for crime, but as elements of the personality and not subconscious factors[4].  An important barrier to these theories becoming widely accepted is the difficulty of measuring them.  Such things as the Superego are difficult to quantify.  Those studies that have been conducted have produced mixed results.  

As social theories began to replace biological ones, Edwin Sutherland soon immortalized himself with his differential association theory.   In his lauded 1947 criminology text, Sutherland states the nine major points of his theory as follows:

1.  Criminal behavior is learned.

2.  Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.

3.  The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups. 

4.  When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes very simple, and (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes. 

5.  The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable.

6.  A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. 

7.  Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.

8.  The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. 

9.  Although criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, because noncriminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values.

Of these nine statements, the sixth is considered the most important--the central proposition of differential association.  Note that mere association is not sufficient to cause criminality.  It is the communication of values from others that conflict with the values of the larger society that cause criminal behavior.  Sutherland did not believe that society was disorganized as did many of his contemporaries, but rather that different groups were differently organized.  It was the definitions gained by association with others through which skills and values were transferred.  The relative weight of these definitions was determined by the strength of association.  Four factors determine the strength of an association: frequency, priority, duration and intensity.     

Building on Sutherland's differential association theory, Akers developed his social learning theory.  While Sutherland explained that criminal behavior is learned, Akers attempted to explain how that behavior is learned.  This is done primarily with the operant conditioning work pioneered by psychologist B. F. Skinner.  Basic to both theories is the idea that primary social groups heavily influence the behavioral patterns of the individual.  The family is often regarded as the most important group of association, followed by peers.  There are strong correlations between criminal parents and criminal children.  In general, research in the area has shown strong support for these theories. 

The 1950s also saw the development of several species of social control (or bonding) theories.  In general, control theory takes motivations to commit crime for granted and treats conformity as the real issue under consideration.  Nye[5], building on the work of Reiss[6], identified three main categories of social control that prevent crime:

1.  Direct control, by which punishment is imposed or threatened for misconduct and compliance is rewarded by parents.

2.  Indirect control, by which a youth refrains from delinquency because his or her delinquent act might cause pain and disappointment for parents and others with whom one has close relationships.

3.  Internal control, by which a youth's conscience or sense of guilt prevents him or her from engaging in delinquent acts.  

Nye recognizes that direct control can be exercised formally by the state, but emphasizes informal controls from within the family.  He argues that the more affection, security and recognition a youth gets from his or her family, the less likely he or she is to engage in illegal behavior.  Nye did find some significant correlations between the family dynamic and delinquency, but these were weak. 

Walter Reckless proposed a theory in 1956, which he dubbed containment theory.  His theory was built on the same general concepts of internal and external control that Nye and Reiss utilized.  The termed these concepts internal and external containment.  In addition to this, he developed explanations as to factors that motivate youth to commit delinquent acts.  The termed these factors "pushes" and "pulls" toward delinquency.  The basic proposition, then, of containment theory is that these pushes and pulls will produce delinquent behavior unless they are counteracted by containment.  It follows that when the motivations to deviant acts are strong and containment is weak, then crime is highly likely to follow.  The inner containment comes in the form of a self-concept of being a good person.  This is developed within the family and is essentially formed by about age 12.  Outer containment takes the form parental, school, and peer responses to delinquent behavior.  This theory does not have the benefit of full empirical support for its validity.  However, it was found that self-concept did have the expected relationship with future delinquency as measured by arrests.

Sykes and Matza proposed a theory in 1957 that explained criminal behavior as the result of adolescents using "neutralization techniques."  That is, these are methods that the youth uses to justify or make excuses for the delinquent act.  Matza, in 1964, used this theory as the basis for his drift theory.   According to this drift theory, adolescents obtain release from conventional morality using neutralization techniques.  This allows the youth to drift in and out of delinquent behavior.   If conventional morals control deviance, then neutralizing those beliefs through rationalization weaken social control.  This theory has little empirical support, and that which does exist does not demonstrate causality.

Travis Hirschi proposed a more widely accepted control theory in 1969, which he dubbed social bonding theory[7].  Unlike most of the previous theories, Hirschi's theory could be applied to all forms of criminality, not just juvenile delinquency.  This theory is based on the general supposition that deviant acts occur when an individual's bonds to society are weak or broken.  Four factors make up this bond to society.  Attachment, commitment, involvement and beliefs form a highly correlated matrix where each factor is dependent on the other.  The weakening of one will most likely result in the weakening of others.  Attachment to others is the extent to which we care about the expectations of others.  The more intense our admiration for that person, the more we desire approval.  Commitment refers to the extent to which a person has invested in conventionality--a personal interest in conformity--that would be lost by engaging in deviance.  This would include such elements as professional and social standing, as well as higher education.  Involvement refers to the degree to which conventional activities occupy our time.  If we are too busy with other conventional pursuits, we are restrained from deviant acts.  Belief refers to the degree that we subscribe to conventional norms and values, especially the belief in the rule of law.  This does not necessarily refer to a specific law, but a general notion about adherence to prescribed rules of behavior.  The relationship to behavior is obvious.  The less we believe we should follow the rules, the more likely we are to violate them. 

Hirschi has since moved away from his bonding theory, and in cooperation with Gottfredson, developed a self-control theory in 1990[8].  This new formulation concentrates solely on self-control.  This theory holds that those with a high degree of self-control will be less likely to commit criminal acts than those with a low degree of self-control, regardless of circumstance.  This propensity of low self-control persons can be counteracted by circumstance.  This means that the correlation between low self-control and criminality is not perfect. Hirschi offers no explanation as to why this new theory emphasizes an internal control and de-emphasizes external controls.  Researchers attempting to evaluate the various control theories have encountered seemingly irresolvable tautological problems.  The empirical validity of these theories has remained relatively untested.

Labeling Theory

Unlike most of the previously discussed theories, labeling theory has no clear-cut founder.  Rather, it seems to have evolved over a relatively long period from the propositions of other theorists.  Mostly it is derived from general symbolic interaction theory in sociology.  The basic premise of symbolic interaction theory is that a person's self concept and values exist only within the context of society.  The prominence of this theory can, however, be attributed to Howard Becker's publication of the oft-cited book Outsiders in 1963[9].

Labeling theory holds that if "significant others" view us as having certain characteristics, we come to take on those characteristics.  These characteristics are often ascribed to us in the form of stigmatizing labels, such as the label "delinquent."  Thus, the formation of the individual's self-concept is a result of others' definitions of him or her.  Once a person is labeled criminal or deviant, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy[10]. This theory has lost much of its prominence because of two major factors.  First, it is considered inadequate by many because it fails to account for the first instance of deviance that gives rise to the stigmatizing label in the first place.  Secondly, research has failed to produce practically significant relationships between labeling and criminality when other social factors are statistically controlled.

Social Disorganization Theories

Social Disorganization theory was pioneered by sociologists at the University of Chicago at the institute for Juvenile Research.  Early research showed that the rate of delinquency decreased in concentric rings running out from the city center.  Delinquency was highest in the inner-city neighborhoods, and least in suburban areas.  They also noticed the same relationship in economic terms.  Families tended to be more affluent they lived from the inner city.  The relationship between delinquency and concentric zones was found to hold regardless of race and ethnicity[11].  Researchers also found that neighborhoods that were in transition form residential to commercial had the most serious problems with crime and delinquency.  These "transition zones" where characterized by physical decay, substandard housing, broken homes, and an unstable, heterogeneous residents.  The population of these areas was characterized by poverty, inadequate education and low compensating occupations.  Mental illness, alcoholism, drug use, and prostitution were also associated with these areas.  The Chicago school viewed these factors as caused by social disorganization within the transition zones.  It was theorized by the researchers that the residents of the area were not abnormal, but, rather, were normal people responding to an abnormal social environment. 

Anomie and Strain Theory

The term anomie can be traced back to the work of Emile Durkheim, who is considered one of the founders of sociology.  Anomie refers to a state of "normlessness" or lack of social regulation in modern society as a factor that encourages higher rates of suicide. Durkheim referred to anomie as a condition of deregulation within society.  That is, the normal conditions of the society have been disrupted when anomie exists.  A chief cause of this disorganization was caused by the industrial revolution.  People were no longer tied together by traditional social bonds of kinship and friendship, but rather by various types of contractual obligations.  Merton applied Durkheim's approach to the conditions of the modern industrial society of the United States.  Merton theorized that an integrated society maintains a balance between social structure and culture.  Anomie is the breakdown of social integration where there is a disparity between valued cultural goals and legitimate means to obtain those goals.  

Merton argued that U.S. society augmented this disjunction between means and ends in two primary ways.  First, the strong cultural emphasis on "success goals" in the U.S. is not matched by an equivalent emphasis on socially approved means.  Success in the U.S., especially financial success, is the basis for the colloquial "American Dream."  According to Merton, American society stresses these gains more than the legitimate means of obtaining them--hard work in education and occupational pursuits.  The theory does not however limit itself to financial success.  Any extreme emphasis on achievement will ease conformity to institutional norms.  Another cause of the means and ends disjunction is the fact that opportunity is not equally distributed.  Minorities and the lower socioeconomic classes simply do not have equal access to legitimate opportunity for success. 

These anomic conditions produce strain or pressure on these individuals to obtain success goals by any means necessary, including illegal or immoral ones.  Merton identified several modes of adaptation to strain.  The first, conformity, is the most common response.  The individual accepts inequality of means and strives for success regardless.  The other modes of adaptation are considered deviant responses.  Chief among these is innovation.  This refers to the individual maintaining the dominant goals of society, but utilizes illegitimate means to attain them.  Most property crime fits into this adaptive scenario.  Another mechanism Merton refers to is ritualism.  This is where the individual gives up the struggle for success and concentrates on zealous adherence to legitimate means, retaining fervently any gains already achieved. Retreatism refers to individuals who have come to reject both legitimate ends and means, and in effect drops out of society altogether.  The most disruptive mode of adaptation is rebellion.  This refers to an individual who has rejected both legitimate ends and means, and replaces them with new ones.  Revolutions occur through this mechanism.  Anomie produced by the disparity between the legitimate goal of success and legitimate means of attaining it result in strain.  This strain results in adaptive behavior, which can be criminal in nature.  The probability of deviant behavior is positively correlated with the degree of strain present.  Thus, individuals in the lowest economic sectors of society are the most likely to engage in criminal behavior. 

Merton's anomie theory is generally a theory of deviance, not necessarily a theory of criminality.  Deviance as understood by Merton was very broad, and even extended to include bureaucratic behavior.  Any behavior that does not conform to the commonly accepted goals of society is considered deviant.  This theory can be characterized as a consensus theory because it holds that there is an agreed upon set of values from which to deviate from.  That is, most members of society share a common system of values, or are socialized into these values.  We learn both what ends we should achieve, and what means are appropriate to achieve them.  When either of these two elements is stressed more than the other is, anomie results.  This causes the formation of various adaptation mechanisms to replace either the goals or the means.  This theory concentrates on motivation, and requires that people be motivated to commit criminal acts.  Adherents to strain theories such as Merton's suggest that crime can be abated by more support for education.  This is because education is thought to be related to the ability to attain success.  From the Perspective of Agnew's strain theory, crime could be abated by reducing negative relationships in basic social institutions such as families, schools and neighborhoods.

Subculture Theories

Merton's theory that strain has structural sources and leads to deviant adaptations to behavior was the basis of Albert Cohen's delinquent subculture theory[12].  Cohen applied the principle specifically to the deviant subculture found among lower class male youths.  In opposition to Merton's view, Cohen maintained that it was the inability to achieve status and recognition within mainstream society that led to strain among these adolescents, not material success.  This acceptance into conventional society involves meeting society's standards of academic performance, dress, behavior, athletic performance, and so on.  Adolescents are most likely to encounter these societal standards in the public school environment.  These "middle-class" expectations are imposed on youth of all classes by teachers and administrators. 

Middle class children easily adapt to these standards, and achieve the desired status and recognition.  Lower-class youths (especially males) have trouble meeting these standards.  They simply do not have the necessary skills to meet the dominant standards of respectability.  Because of this "status deprivation", they begin to feel "status frustration" and respond with a "reaction formation" of entering into a delinquent subculture.  The requirements for status and approval within this subculture can be met by lower-class youths.  This subculture values "malicious" and "negativistic" behavior as opposed to conventional values.  They are also considered "non-utilitarian."  Toughness and an overt disdain for middle-class values are the avenues to greater standing in the delinquent subculture.  Cohen argues that these youths are "non-utilitarian" and that Merton's theory is to rationalistic to be applied to them.  The only end they are concerned with is improved status within the subculture. 

Cloward and Ohlin drew upon Cohen's theory as well as several others in developing their differential opportunity theory[13].  According to this theory, Merton's anomie theory incorrectly assumes that lower-class persons have ready access to illegitimate opportunities.  They interpreted Sutherland as focusing on the social transmission of deviant values in lower-class areas and demonstrating the importance of the availability of illegitimate opportunities through an illegitimate opportunity structure.  Thus, the person's location within the opportunity structure played a critical role.  Motivation to achieve success goals is not sufficient to account for either conforming or deviant behavior.  They must be in an environment where opportunities exist to learn deviant behavior.  Cloward and Ohlin agree that barriers to legitimate means cause strain toward deviant behavior, but the type of deviant behavior is determined by what illegitimate opportunities are available within the neighborhood.  This led Cloward and Ohlin to see several subcultures where Cohen considers only one.

They describe several classifications of delinquent subcultures.  Criminal subcultures are characterized by gangs organized around income producing activity mostly consisting of property crimes such as shoplifting and extortion, and violence would be minimized.  Conflict subcultures engage in constant fighting and members gains status by being tough and demonstrating martial prowess.  A socially disorganized neighborhood tends to create a youth gang subculture that is disorganized as well.  Retreatist subcultures are primarily identified by the use of drugs and alcohol.  They engage in group criminal activity mostly to support their personal drug habits.  These individuals are referred to as double failures because they could not fit into normal society or one of the other types of gang subcultures.

Differential opportunity theory takes Merton's anomie theory and adds to it the neighborhood level observations of the Chicago school.  It also adds another component which suggests that the major problem in understanding criminality is understanding how different reactions to strain occur, and under what circumstances.  Thus, the primary consideration is on the learning methods that perpetuate the deviant subculture.  

Walter Miller followed Cohen, concentrating his theory on lower-class male gang members[14].  He subscribed to strain theory's assertion that engaging in deviant acts is motivated by attempts to gain desired ends.  He disagreed, however, with the idea that distinct subcultures adapted to available opportunity.  Rather, he proposed that deviant behavior is the result of adaptation to lower-class culture.  He posits that delinquency is a way of gaining status and acceptance in lower-class culture.  Youths learn adult lower-class values or focal concerns.  These focal concerns are seized upon by youth and acted on in a blown up way.  By demonstrating the focal concerns of toughness, smartness, autonomy, independence, fatalism, lower-class males gain status and belonging in gangs.  These qualities are best demonstrated by criminal behavior such as fighting.

Robert Agnew expanded strain theory to include strain beyond the means and ends conflict[15].  According to Agnew, deviant behaviors are adaptations to strain, but this strain can have several sources.  He enumerates three major types of strain.  First is the failure to achieve individual goals.  Second is the removal of positive or desired stimuli from the individual.  Third is the confrontation of the individual with negative stimuli.  As with many of the previous theories of deviance, the empirical validity of strain theories has not been fully tested, mostly due to the complexity of the theory. 

Conflict Theories

Most of the theories presented so far have consensus as key elements.  Consensus about what types of acts should be criminal was thought to exist throughout all segments of society.  Most theorists felt that while not immutable, these ideas of right and wrong were relatively static, or at least very slow to change.  The prevailing mores and folkways entered into the law through legislation and decisions of the courts.  The basic premise here is the agreement of most people with the acts regulated by law, similar to Blackstone's description of the natural law.  Adherents to conflict theory argue that criminology is generally too concerned with asking why people commit crimes while other do not, while we should be asking why some acts are made criminal and others are not[16]. 

Conflict theory is thought by its adherents to better describe the diversity and lack of uniformity of modern society.  This theory holds that the values and interests of different groups conflict to such a degree that behavior that is acceptable to one group is seen as deviant by the other.  It follows from this that the law reflects the values of the group with the most political power, and not the values of all persons in general.  Conflict theory does not deny that some values, such as the prohibition of violent crimes, can be common to most all groups.  Conflict is criticized by many because it only explains certain types of crime.  It does not explain most index crimes at all.  Conflict theory seems to do a better job of describing the legal process than criminal behavior. 

Theory Integration

Ronald Akers describes three principal ways by which theories can be evaluated.  First, theories can be considered on their own, and evaluated independently.  Second, theories can be compared to determine which better explains crime.  This process is called theory competition.  The third method of constructing and assessing theory is by theoretical integration.  Theory integration refers the combination and reformulation of two or more existing theories that are selected based on their commonalities.  The desired result is a theory that has more predictive power than any of the component theories it encompasses[17].      

Further Reading

Endnotes

This page available at: