Evaluating Theories of Crime
What is a “Theory?”
• A statement of set of statements about the relationships between 2 or more events
– In criminology?
• A theory predicts what will happen, not how the world should be
How do you know a “good theory” when you see one?
• Akers’ 6 criteria for evaluating a theory
1. Logical Consistency
2. Scope
3. Parsimony
4. Testability
5. Fit with Empirical Evidence
6. Usefulness of Policy Implications
Logical Consistency
• Clearly Defined Concepts
– Concept = symbol/label that we apply to an abstract image
– Examples?
• Concepts must fit in a logical manner
– BAD LOGIC: All crime is caused by imprisonment
SCOPE (not the mouthwash)
• DEPENDENT variable
• How “general” is your explanation?
– Specific forms of crime/deviance?
– All crime?
– All crime, deviance, sin, and recklessness?
• All else being equal, “Wider is Better”
Parsimony
• INDEPENDENT (predictor) variables
• How complex is your explanation?
– Parsimony: Low self-control is single cause of crime
– Not: Crime caused by a combination of poverty, inequality, average daily temperature, intelligence, hair color, weight, daily stress…
• All else being equal, more parsimony is better!
Testability
• A valid theory can be falsified
• Non-falsifiable theories?
– Tautological arguments (crime causes crime)
– Vague and open-ended statements (Freud)
– Must be observe/measure concepts (little green men)
Is the theory correct?
• Survive empirical scrutiny
• Few theories are entirely correct or false
– To what degree is the theory supported?
– Preponderance of evidence support?
• Incorrect theories must be modified or discarded
Policy Implication
• All crime theories attempt to identify the “causes” of crime.
– Can the causes be reversed?
– Does the theory translate into practice?
• Example: Marxist theory of crime
Flow Chart for Evaluation
Testability
Logical Consistency? à No à Throw out theory
à Yes à Empirical Evidence Support? à No (Stop here)
à Yes
Evaluate:
Scope
Parsimony
Policy Imp.