Why do people commit crimes? How do we control crime? The theories that criminologists use to answer these questions are built on a number of underlying assumptions about the nature of crime, free will, human nature, and society. They largely determine what criminologists study, the causes they examine, the control strategies they recommend, and how they test their theories and evaluate crime-control strategies. Makes the case that these assumptions are too restrictive (unduly limiting the types of “crime” that are explored, the causes that are considered, and the methods of data collection and analysis that are employed) and they undermine our ability to explain and control crime. Proposes an alternative set of assumptions with the goal of laying the foundation for a unified criminology that is better able to explain a broader range of crimes.
|(CRIME/JUSTICE * CRIMINOLOGY: ASSUMPTIONS QUESTIONED)