ABSTRACT
The reasons for this situation are complex but hinge on the lack of recognition, if not outright rejection, of the “ghost in the machine” (Koestler, 1968). Of course the ghost we are referring to is the brain and its biological and genetic subsystems. Contemporary students of crime may find it odd that a science of human behavior eschews looking into the machinery of the mind. The question that emerges, obviously, is why? We offer three possible explanations. First, many sociological theories of crime require a fundamental belief about the nature of human action. Behavior, assume most social theories of crime, is the product of external socializing influences, such as parental efforts, peer groups, and neighborhoods. Second, many sociological theories of crime require adherence to “knowledge” that has limited, if any, scientific support. Postmodernist perspectives and many feminist theories of criminal involvement come immediately to mind. Postmodern and feminist perspectives are often antiscientific but it is worth noting that virtually every other social theory of crime is at best marginally supported by empirical evidence. Still, advocates of specific theories regularly flaunt their strengths with little consideration given to their reflection of reality. Finally, virtually all social theories of human misbehavior seek to exclude and to vilify bodies of
knowledge that challenge basic sociological tenets. Sound biological and genetic findings rarely make their way into top criminology journals. Worse yet, individual researchers who conduct research in this area are often subject to speculation about their motives (are they racist or sexist),1
their political orientations (are they liberal or conservative), and their character (are they “nice” people).
