Although there are many theories that are evaluated, only some of them are considered good theories based on certain evaluation criterion that is met. Too be considered a good theory there are several evaluation criterion that need to be met such as the logical consistency, testability and empirical validity. The logical consistency has two elements, the scope and parsimony, both are interrelated. The scope of a theory refers to the range of explanation (Akers & Sellers, 2013, p. 5). If the scope of a theory is limited then the theory itself is limited. For example, if a theory only focuses on one crime rather than several crimes then the scope of the theory may be limited. In addition to scope, parsimony refers to “using as few concepts and propositions as possible to explain the widest range of phenomena” (Akers & Sellers, 2013, p. 5). With parsimony, it needs to be simple, but sufficient. An example of a theory with logical consistency is Deterrence Theory. Logical consistency is applicable to the theory because it recognizes that all crimes have threat/risk of punishment which leads to deterrence of committing crimes. As a result, the theory is simple, but also covers a wide range of phenomena, such as all crimes, that encompasses both a large scope and parsimony.
In addition to logical consistency, testability is an important piece when evaluating a theory. According to Akers & Sellers (2013), “a theory must be testable by objective, repeatable evidence” (p.5); thus, if the theory is not testable then it has no scientific value. There are several reasons why a theory might not be testable; such as its concepts may not be observable or reportable events and tautology. Tautology refers to a statement or hypothesis that is tr...
... middle of paper ...
...eled a criminal (X) renders the occurrence of them continuing that lifestyle (Y) more probable.
In addition to theories causality, the quality of the empirical test is important. A theory that doesn’t measure the independent and dependent variables correctly could cause inadequate methodological quality. Also, it could cause issues with hypothesising. Furthermore, if the theory doesn’t collect enough data from a related, large and diverse sample then the theory is insufficient. All of these pieces correlate to contribute to a sufficient empirical test. For example, if a theory suggests all men who grow up in a violent house hold will commit violent acts in the future, but doesn’t collect data from a large enough population or includes women in the study then their empirical testing could be insignificant, which would lead to the theory not being empirically valid.
Crimes are deliberate acts, with the intent of benefiting the offender. 2. Benefiting unsuccessfully in choosing the best decisions because of the risks and uncertainty involved. 3. Decision making significantly varies with the nature of the crime. 4. Involvement decisions are quite different from the commission (event decision) of a specific act. 5. Involvement decisions are divided into three stages: first time involvement (initiation), continued involvement (habituation) and ceasing to offend (desistance), 6. Event decisions include a sequence of choices made at each stage of the criminal act, involvement model, background factors and situational life styles, initiation (of becoming involved in a crime), habituation (deciding to continue with crime), distance (deciding to stop criminal behavior) and event model – criminal even
to their future criminal behavior, they commit the crime because they have been associated by
Secondly, differential association varies based on the intensity, duration, frequency, priority, and timing of one’s process of learning. Through this notion, the individual’s self is disregarded and more emphasis is placed on the extrinsic factors. Furthermore, “it is an individual’s experiences and the ways in which the individual defines those experiences which constitute to the learning of criminality”. (Gongenvare & Dotter, 2007,
Akers, R, & Sellers, C. (2009). Criminological theories: introduction, evaluation, and application. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
The theory of punishment as a whole is worth investigating as well. My largest argument against the theory of punishment is that it is not a fair or just operation. The concept of punishment is a way to intentionally harm people. This is not a just way of making a case right, or making a victim heal from any crime they may have been a part of. The victim is not compensated for the damage or harm caused to them. Punishment, in the retributive theory will really only do good in that it deters people from committing crime because they are scared of the punishment- but this simply does not work as well as it should. The restitution theory does not address the issue of who is entitled to cause harm to others, or punish said criminals.
... a theory should be able to explain a wide variety of things, not just only what it was intended to explain.
that this example shows that criminals loose much of their willingness to take advantage of
Any hypothesis, Gould says, begins with the collection of facts. In this early stage of a theory development bad science leads nowhere, since it contains either little or contradicting evidence. On the other hand, Gould suggests, testable proposals are accepted temporarily, furthermore, new collected facts confirm a hypothesis. That is how good science works. It is self-correcting and self-developing with the flow of time: new information improves a good theory and makes it more precise. Finally, good hypotheses create logical relations to other subjects and contribute to their expansion.
By providing an understanding as to why empirical evidence exists for this method, this will allow one to keep in consideration to evaluate both supporting and contradicting evidence that is not supporting. This approach was established by Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794,) who elaborated on how punishments should fit the crime. His most famous book On Crimes and Punishments (1764), helped shape the justice system by implementing necessary reforms. This theory has established empirical support and determining the value behind this approach to understand the reasoning as to why this theory is viewed as a “good theory,” this criterion will assist in determining the importance behind theory testing and how it can be used to establish if a method is
...ifferent crime patterns and thought processes of criminals. The reasons can only come from these theories and will help the justice systems become more prepared to react towards different crimes. However, with adding some enhancements, projects and experiments these two theories have the potential to change the criminology realm forever.
According to Jimenez-Buedo (2011), it is difficult to make a valid reference that there is a causal relationship when conducting an experiment in a laboratory-style setting. Jimenez-Buedo (2011) also states that both internal and external validity are being inferred without adequate evidence to support the claims being made in many cases. Jimenez-Buedo (2011) also states that generalization of results in the case of external validity should not be taken lightly. In other words, it appears that she feels that neither internal nor external validity should be inferred in many cases associated with experiments that are done in a laboratory setting versus the real world. This appears to mean that in all circumstances Jimenez-Buedo (2011) favors conducting experiments that are as representative as possible of the real world in order to be able to validate the results and in order to infer a causal or generalizable relationship.
In order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the criminal behavior theories, the word theory needs to be defined. “A theory is an explanation. It tells why or how things are related to each other. A theory of crime explains why or how a certain thing or certain things are related to criminal behavior.” (Bohn and Vogel)
They also explore the myths about the connection between genetic factors and criminal behavior. The first myth they looked at was “Identifying the Role of Genetics in Criminal Behavior Implies That There Is a “Crime Gene.”” This myth is dismissed because of the unlikelihood that that a single gene is responsible for criminal behavior. The second myth they look at is “Attributing Crime to Genetic Factors is Deterministic.” This myth is also easily dismissed because of the fact that just because someone has a predisposition to a certain behavior doesn’t mean that the person will take on that behavior.
... 86). Hence why I believe that criminal behaviour is influenced by mixture of a persons social background, life chances and pathology
In review of theory integration, it is consider important for the future of criminology because it merges the insights from two or more theories into a single framework to introduction reasoning or cause for crimes that are being committed. Integrated theory involves more than one perspective, It tends to explain the reason for criminal behavior or the causes of crime by varies models within the