Criminology: Understanding Human Behavior Complexities

Criminology stands at the intersection of law, society, and psychology, delving deep into the enigma of human behavior that defies social norms. Midway through my twenty-five-year career in law enforcement, I went back to school to finish a degree in psychology. In passing, I explained to a sergeant that I was working toward a degree in psychology so I could understand why people do what they do. He flippantly replied, “I can tell you that. Sex, Money, and Power.”

While there is a morsel of truth in this simplicity, it obviously falls well short of understanding the complexities of human behavior. These primary motivators play a role in human behavior; however, a large percentage of society mediate these drives without devolving into social deviance. Criminology theories attempt to explain the differences in behaviors between those who deviant from social norms and those who conform.

Purpose of Criminology Theories

As we navigate through its intricate theories, it becomes evident that understanding crime is not merely about cataloging unlawful acts but unraveling the complex tapestry woven from individual choices and societal influences. Classical perspectives frame criminals as rational decision-makers. In contrast, positivist views emphasize biological and environmental determinants. Each theory contributes a vital piece to the puzzle. This exploration sheds light on why individuals deviate from expected behaviors and how various factors interplay to shape their actions.

In an era where crime remains a pressing concern for communities around the globe, dissecting these criminological theories offers critical insights essential for effective prevention strategies and intervention programs. The dynamics between internal motivations—such as psychological predispositions—and external pressures like socio-economic disparities illustrate that criminal behavior cannot be attributed to a singular cause. Instead, it’s a multifaceted phenomenon influenced by an array of elements that challenge our perceptions of justice and morality. By embracing this complexity, we can better understand not only those who commit crimes but also the broader societal contexts in which these behaviors manifest—ultimately guiding us toward more informed responses in combating crime effectively.

Introduction: Understanding Crime: A Look at Major Criminological Theories

Criminology, the study of law-making, law-breaking, and reactions to law-breaking, encompasses a wide array of theoretical perspectives attempting to explain why crime occurs. These theories often draw from various disciplines, including sociology, psychology, and biology, and can focus on macro-level societal structures or micro-level individual behaviors. While they may offer differing, or even contradictory, explanations, each theory provides valuable insights into the complex phenomenon of crime.

The Different Theories

Classical Theory

Classical Theory The Classical School of criminology, emerging in the mid-18th century, views crime as a natural consequence of unrestrained human tendencies to seek pleasure and avoid pain (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). It posits that individuals are rational actors who exercise free will and make choices based on a cost-benefit analysis, weighing potential pleasure against anticipated pain or punishment. Therefore, this theory emphasizes that criminal acts are fun, worthwhile, enjoyable, easy, and exciting. The primary focus of classical theory shifted towards government crime control policy, aiming to deter crime through proportionate and certain punishment rather than addressing underlying causes.

Positivist School

In contrast to classical theory, the Positivist School, which dominated criminology throughout the 20th century, emphasizes causation and determinism, denying the self-seeking model of human nature central to the classical view. Positivism applies scientific techniques from various disciplines like psychology, biology, and sociology to identify causal relationships between factors and offending behavior, focusing on the individual who committed the offense rather than solely the act itself. Early biological positivists, for instance, believed criminals were a distinct type of person with inborn abnormalities or biological inferiority, viewing criminal acts as symptoms of a personal disorder (Akers, 2000, p. 42). However, this broad approach often led to endless typologies of offenders due to its lack of a unified conception of crime.

See Lombroso’s Atavistic Theory of Crime for more information on this type of theory

Strain Theory

Strain theory, also known as anomie theory, proposes that crime and deviance arise when individuals experience disjunctions or inconsistencies between culturally valued goals (like material success) and the legitimate means available to achieve them. This strain or pressure can cause individuals to resort to criminal behavior as an alternative means of achieving success. It can also be a response to actual or anticipated failure. Additionally, it may result from the removal of positive stimuli or the presentation of negative stimuli. Different versions of the theory emphasize various sources of strain and how individuals adapt to them, with some focusing on broader societal structures that create these disparities (Rojek & Jensen, 1995, p. 160).

See Strain Theory for more information on this theory

Subculture of Violence Theory

The subculture of violence theory posits that certain social environments or communities possess a distinct set of values, norms, and behaviors that promote the use of violence as an acceptable means of resolving conflicts. This theory suggests that individuals within these subcultures are socialized to perceive violent behavior as normal. They see it as necessary for maintaining respect and status among peers. Volkan Topalli explains that “traditional subcultural theorists maintain that offenders operate in an environment in which oppositional norms catering to ethics of violence, toughness and respect dominate the social landscape. Such offenders actively reject middle-class value systems and operate beyond the boundaries of what is considered decent society” (Topalli, 2005).

Factors contributing to the emergence of such subcultures often include socioeconomic disadvantages, exposure to crime, and weak social institutions. Consequently, members may adopt aggressive responses to perceived threats or challenges in their environment, perpetuating a cycle of violence that is difficult to break. Understanding this phenomenon can provide insight into crime patterns within specific communities and inform targeted interventions aimed at reducing violence through community engagement and support initiatives.

See Subculture of Violence Theory for more on this theory

Control Theory

Unlike other theories that ask “What causes crime?”, control theory (including social bonding and self-control theories) poses a different fundamental question: “Why doesn’t everyone commit crime?”. It assumes that human beings are naturally inclined to pursue self-interest and engage in deviant behavior unless prevented by strong social and personal controls (Akers & Sellers, 2009, p. 124). These restraining factors include social bonds to conventional society (e.g., attachment, commitment, involvement, belief) or self-control, which is seen as the ability to defer gratification and inhibit impulsive behavior. The theory suggests that weak or broken bonds, or low self-control, increase the likelihood of criminal activity.

Differential Association Theory

Edwin H. Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory (1939) asserts that criminal behavior is learned. This learning occurs primarily through intimate personal groups, such as family and friends, and involves acquiring both the techniques of committing crime and the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes favorable to violating laws. The core principle is that a person becomes criminal when they are exposed to an excess of definitions favorable to law violation over definitions unfavorable to law violation. This learning process is fundamentally the same as that for lawful behavior.

See Differential Association Theory for more on this theory

Social Learning Theory

Ronald L. Akers’ Social Learning Theory is a behavioral reformulation and extension of differential association theory. It explicitly incorporates principles from modern behaviorism. These principles include operant conditioning and observational learning (imitation/modeling). It explains that criminal behavior is acquired and maintained through differential reinforcement, meaning behaviors are strengthened or weakened by their rewards and punishments (consequences), and through imitation of models (Akers, 1998). While building on Sutherland, Akers’ theory provides a more detailed exposition of the specific learning processes by which individuals come to engage in criminal behavior, including direct and vicarious learning, and the role of discriminative stimuli and definitions (attitudes/beliefs).

See Akers’ Social Learning Theory for more on this theory

Routine Activity Theory

Routine Activity Theory explains criminal events rather than the motivation of individual offenders. It posits that a crime is most likely to occur when there is a convergence in space and time of three minimal elements: a motivated offender, a suitable target (person or property), and the absence of a capable guardian (formal or informal). The theory suggests that changes in society’s routine activities, which affect the availability of suitable targets and capable guardians, influence crime rates (Akers, 2000, p. 35).

Developmental and Life-Course Theories (DLC)

Developmental and Life-Course (DLC) theories provide a broad framework for studying criminal behavior patterns across the lifespan, focusing on stability and change in offending over time. These theories often propose that various factors, including biological, psychological, and social influences (such as peer associations, family, and employment), interact to shape an individual’s trajectory of criminal involvement from childhood through adulthood (Laub & Sampson, 1993). While some focus on distinct groups of offenders (e.g., adolescence-limited versus life-course persistent), many DLC theories build upon and integrate concepts from existing general criminological theories like social learning, strain, and control theories.

See Developmental and Life Course theories for more on these criminology theories

Critical Criminology

Critical criminology represents an umbrella term encompassing various theoretical perspectives that fundamentally criticize mainstream criminological theories. While traditional approaches like classicism and positivism often accept the legal definition of crime unquestioningly, focus on individual offenders, and tend to explain crime through inherent flaws or rational choices of individuals, critical criminology rejects these premises (Ugwudike, 2015). Instead, it asserts that crime and deviance are socially constructed phenomena, not possessing inherent qualities, and are inextricably linked to unequal power dynamics and structural inequalities within society. These perspectives argue that laws and criminal definitions are largely influenced by powerful groups to maintain their interests, often at the expense of the less powerful who become disproportionately criminalized.

Critical criminology emerged predominantly in the 1960s and 1970s. Its early Marxist and radical strands aimed to shift the focus from individual pathology. They highlighted the social, economic, and political structures of capitalist societies as the root causes of crime and deviance. This broad field has since diversified into numerous sub-perspectives, including labeling theory, conflict theory, feminist criminology, left realism, studies of crimes of the powerful (such as white-collar and corporate crime), green criminology, cultural criminology, critical race theory, peacemaking criminology, and convict criminology (Akers, 2000, p. 205). Despite their varied emphases and methodologies, these perspectives share a common commitment to challenging existing power differentials, hierarchies, and inequalities. They also advocate for social justice and transformative policy changes that humanize the impact of penal systems, rather than hardening it.

Marxist Theory

Marxist criminology, closely related to conflict theory, maintains that capitalist societies inherently produce crime due to their fundamental structural inequalities and class struggle (Ugwudike, 2015, p. 76). It argues that crime is a significant consequence of the exploitation and oppression of the working class under capitalism, leading to “crimes of accommodation” (survival-driven offenses) or “crimes of rebellion” against the system. Marxist theorists primarily focus on criminal law as a tool used by the ruling class. It serves to maintain their power. They also control the marginalized through the criminal justice system.

Labeling Theory

Labeling theory argues that deviance and crime are not inherent qualities of an act but rather a product of social construction and reaction. It posits that the labeling process by which official agents of social control (e.g., police, courts) define individuals as “criminal” can lead to secondary deviance, where the individual internalizes the label and conforms to the role of a criminal (Akers, 2000, p. 207). This theory highlights the power dynamics in society, suggesting that criminal definitions are applied disproportionately to less-powerful individuals and can shape their identity and future behavior.

See Labeling Theory for more information on this theory

Conflict Theory

Conflict theories assert that society is not held together by consensus on major values, but by a dynamic equilibrium of opposing group interests and efforts. Crime is viewed as a reflection of this ongoing collective conflict, arising when individuals act according to the norms of their own group, which may violate the laws enacted by more powerful groups (Ugwudike, 2015, p. 76). The most powerful groups in society are seen as controlling the law-making and enforcement processes, thus criminalizing behaviors that threaten their interests.

Feminist Theory

Feminist theories in criminology share a core perspective that women experience subordination based on their sex, and they critically examine how gender inequality and male dominance (patriarchy) influence crime and the criminal justice system. They question whether traditional crime theories, largely developed by and for males, adequately explain female criminality or the gender differences in crime rates. Feminist perspectives highlight how societal structures confine women to positions of relative powerlessness, impacting both their offending and victimization experiences (Ugwudike, 2015, p. 278).

Peacemaking Criminology

Peacemaking criminology represents a critical perspective that advocates for a non-violent, restitutive, and reconciling approach to the problem of crime and criminal justice. Drawing inspiration from religious, humanist, feminist, and Marxist traditions, it critiques the punitive and repressive nature of the traditional criminal justice system. Instead of focusing on identifying and subduing perpetrators, peacemaking criminology emphasizes harm reduction and seeks solutions that involve reconciliation, reintegration, and transforming violence into trustworthy relations (Cullen et al., 2011, p. 209).

Left Realism

Emerging as a response to both traditional and Marxist criminology, Left Realism seeks to provide a more practical approach to crime reduction (Lea, 2016). While it acknowledges the role of structural inequalities in causing crime, it also takes seriously the real impact of “street crime” on working-class communities. It advocates for policy changes that address both the root causes of crime (poverty, inequality) and the need for pragmatic crime control measures to protect vulnerable populations (Stefanovska, 2019).

Associated Concepts

• Moral Disengagement Theory: This theory examines the various mechanisms individuals employ to rationalize and justify unethical actions.
• Psychology of Assassination: The motivation behind assassination often involves a complex interplay of psychological factors. Perpetrators may become fixated on a particular target due to a sense of grievance or perceived injustice. These feelings may be exacerbated by social or political influences.
• Deviance: This refers to any behavior, thought, or characteristic that significantly departs from what is considered appropriate. It may not be acceptable or typical within a particular social group, culture, or society.
• Social Norms: These are the unspoken rules that govern behavior in a group or society. They are the accepted standards of conduct, beliefs, and values that influence how people interact with each other.
• Degeneration Theory: This theory posits that biological devolution was a primary cause of mental illness. The theory suggests that the phenomenon occurs as an organism degenerates from a more complex state to a simpler, less differentiated state.
• Empathy Deficit Disorder: This disorder hinders relationships and perpetuates isolation. Scientist cite both environmental and biological factors for its formation. Lack of empathy may compound evil behaviors when combined with creativity.
• Dark Triad Personalities: These refer to three socially aversive personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. These traits are characterized by self-centeredness, manipulativeness, callousness, and a lack of empathy.
• Social Isolation: Many assassins experience social isolation, which can exacerbate feelings of alienation and resentment. Lack of social support can also reduce the likelihood of intervention by others.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

As we conclude this exploration of criminology, it becomes clear that the study of crime is as multifaceted and dynamic as the human experience itself. The various theories we’ve examined—from classical to critical criminology—each reveal different facets of why individuals navigate their lives in ways that can lead to law-breaking behavior. By understanding these diverse perspectives, we not only gain insights into the motivations behind criminal acts but also recognize the societal structures that shape these behaviors. This comprehensive approach emphasizes that crime is not simply a product of individual failings but rather a complex interplay between personal choices and broader social influences.

In light of our discussions, it is crucial for policymakers, practitioners, and communities to adopt a holistic view when addressing crime prevention and intervention strategies. Recognizing that each theory contributes valuable knowledge allows us to craft nuanced approaches tailored to specific contexts and populations. As we move forward in combating crime effectively, let us remember that fostering positive change requires not only an understanding of criminal behavior but also a commitment to addressing the underlying socio-economic factors at play. In doing so, we pave the way for more just societies where individuals are empowered with opportunities for growth rather than paths leading toward deviance—a vision rooted in both research and compassion.

Last Update: August 15, 2025