Specific Criminological Theories

Contents
1. Introduction
2. Criminological theories
3. Conclusion
4. Bibliography

Introduction
Criminology is very important for the contemporary society and nowadays it seems to be essential for normal functioning of the society because it contributes to prevention and understanding of crimes and criminal behavior. Naturally crimes have never been accepted by society but nowadays it is particularly important because society has reached such a level of development that crime should be eliminated. Unfortunately, it is only an idealistic view on crime but this is a goal people have to strive for. Obviously it is impossible to solve the problem of crimes and criminal behavior without deep knowledge of the subject. This is why a number of schools haveeen developed and they have their own theories interpreting criminology in their own particular way. In such a situation it is necessary to analyse basic theories to better understand criminology and its subject.
Criminological theories
Speaking about criminological theories it is necessary to briefly define criminology in general in order to better understand the nuances of different theories interpreting it in particular ways. Traditionally, criminology is basically focused on the study of a crime as a social phenomenon, criminologists attempt to understand and explain the causes and consequences of crimes committed by people. At the same time the main goal of criminologists is to understand criminal behavior and its causes in order to be able to prevent it. On the other hand, the prevention of crime is impossible without regulations which define the crime itself. At this respect, criminology is also concerned about the development of laws and their impact on people.
Naturally it is very difficult to find or to create a universal criminological theory because the subject is too complicated. Nonetheless, it is possible to analyse some of them and better understand the subject. At this respect it is probably better to start with the classical school and its criminological theory for it is one of the oldest ones and its points, at first glance being outdated, are still noteworthy. The basic point of this theory is the idea that people have a free will to choose how to act. As a result classical school views a human being as a ‘hedonist’ who seeks pleasure and avoids pain, as a ‘rational calculator’ weighing up the costs and benefits of each action. In such a way the causes of crimes cannot be irrationally or unconsciously motivated but, in contrast, are the product of human will and mind. Obviously this theory is a bit simplistic because it views an individual as absolutely independent from the society and free of emotions that, in actuality, can hardly be possible. At the same time, its view on punishment as a means of deterring people from crime, for the costs outweigh benefits, seems to be quite naive.
Quite a different theory positivist school has worked out. According to positivist, criminal behavior is caused by psychological, social or other specific, determining factors that put some people at more of a predisposition toward crime. Such interpretation of causation of crime is absolutely different from classical school for it is basically focused on factors which do not depend on an individual free will and his rationalism but, in contrast, on social impact and emotional or psychological state. To put it more precisely, according to this theory, the criminal behavior may be provoked by social factors, such as poverty, low levels of education, membership of subcultures, or by different psychological factors. At the same time, this theory also has some practically absurd presumptions as for causation of crimes, such as biological factors, developed by Cesare Lombroso, who believed that some specific measurements of one’s cheekbones or hairline, or a cleft palate may indicate at criminal tendencies that cannot be accepted by the contemporary criminology as a reasonable and logical explanation of causes of criminal behavior.
Another criminological theory, Strain theory is to a certain extent close to both theories discussed above but in fact it remains quite different. Strain theory suggests that mainstream culture is saturated with dreams about prosperity, opportunity and freedom. Many people buy into this dream and it becomes a powerful cultural and psychological motivation that can even provoke people to commit crime. In such a way, this theory understood causation of crime as a dichotomy between what society expected of its citizens, and what those citizens can actually achieve. Therefore, if the social structure of opportunities is unequal and prevents the majority from realising the dream, some of citizens will turn to crime in order to realise it. In such a way the theory basically explains crime by social factors, which are emphasised that the theory of positivist schools lacks. At the same time this theory remains room for individual’s free will to commit crime as it is supposed by classical school. On the other hand, this theory is different from both classical and positivist because it focuses on contradictions between society and individual’s dreams and intentions.
Finally, sub-cultural theory may be viewed as a derivative from strain theory. This theory is basically focused on small groups fragmenting away form strain theorists’ mainstream to form their own values and meanings about life. According to the theory, some of these groups, especially from poor areas where opportunity are scarce, may adopt criminal values and meanings. In such a situation this theory is focused only on a small social group but not the society at large as the main causative factor determining individual’s criminal behavior. And again this theory is close to strain theorists and positivists in its social influence but interprets it in a different way and lacks attention to individual’s free will, emphasised by classical school.
Conclusion
On analysing four different theories, it becomes obvious that there is no perfect theories. At the same time it is possible to conclude that the truth is somewhere in the middle. It means that, speaking about the causation of crime, criminologists should basically focus on both social and individual factors which influence personality of a criminal. In other words, a criminal is influenced by his social surrounding, namely by his cultural group but he cannot live in his social group in a complete isolation from the rest of the society. Consequently it is possible to presuppose that an individual is under mutual impact of his social surrounding and society, consisting of different cultural groups and uniting them, at large. Finally, personality of a criminal is also of a paramount importance for individual’s traits of character, psychological characteristics can also be motivating factors making a person to commit crime.

Bibliography:
1. Bohm, R. A Primer on Crime and Delinquency Theory. Belmont, CA: Wardsworth, 2001.
2. DeKeseredy, W and M. Shwartz. Contemporary Criminology. Belmont, CA: Wardsworth, 1996.
3. Kornhauser, R. Social Sources of Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.
4. Jones, D. A History of Criminology. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1987.
5. Lilly, J. et al. Criminological Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995.