Major Theories of Crime Causation
Charles Manson and Theoretical Schools of Crime Causation
Includes a critique of the lack of integration of individual and environmental explanatory approaches in criminology. Discusses what theories of crime causation should explain, as well as the importance of having a proper theory of action. The initial outline of key causal factors and processes in the explanation of crime according to SAT are outlined.
What are the Different Theories of Crime Causation?
Wikström, Per-Olof. 2004. Crime as alternative: Towards a cross-level situational action theory of crime causation. In Beyond empiricism: Institutions and intentions in the study of crime. Edited by Joan McCord, 1–37. Advances in Criminological Theory 13. New Brunswick, NY: Transaction.
Personality theories of crime causation focus more on the nature argument, suggesting that traits of the personality are passed onto us. Eynsecks theory works on the basis that humans are hedonistic and look to avoid pain at any cost. In relation to personality and the theory of crime causation, Eysenck suggested that it is the difference between having a strong conscious that determines whether someone will commit a crime or not. Eysenck also argued that crime commited is a result of a poor undeveloped conscious and particular personality traits. (Rank, 2016) (McLeod, 2014)Prominent theories of crime causation are strain theory, in which people commit crimes to get relief from strain or stress, and control theory, which claims that others force people to do crimes. The social learning theory is the idea that people learn to do crimes through their association with others.A major area of study is economic theories of crime causation. Social scientists look at what the criminal expects to gain from crime as opposed to what he can earn from legal work, whether he can get gainful legal employment and what he perceives as the risk of being caught when committing crimes along with the severity of punishment.An alternative conception of political theories of crime causation is that they are characterized by their emphasis on social conflict and power relationships. Although such theories, as we have seen, may be applied to any form of crime, they have not historically focused on explaining individual criminal behavior, but rather have focused on explaining variations in crime rates, and especially on the differing risks (among class, racial, and other population sectors) of being labeled as criminal. Insofar as the criminal justice system is seen as an instrument of political control or repression, the politicization of all crime is implied. More narrowly, it is occasionally argued that political crimes, as such, are especially amenable to explanation by labeling and conflict theories; but the counterargument is that any theory with an affinity to apolitical ideology can be invoked to account for political criminality.