ABSTRACT
MANY people would be extremely surprised to be told that the most urgent need in the study of criminal be-haviour is for an adequate theoretical system. Indeed, criminologists are frequently reproached for devoting too much of their time to the elaboration of theories, and too little to the contemplation of the sober facts of crime. The substantial progress which has recently been made by sociological criminologists in amassing empirical information has deflected this criticism squarely on to those who profess knowledge of the psychology of crime. And it must be acknowledged that there is no lack of speculation, of shrewd insights, and even of dogmatic assertions about what it is that makes one man a criminal while his fellows remain honest. Yet hunches are not theories, nor can mere plausibility be accepted as a substitute for scientific proof. The great majority of explanations which are advanced to account for criminality are intended to apply to some offenders only-but it is usually impossible to determine with any exactness in which cases they may legitimately be invoked. Little progress has been made in the validation of most of these propositions, and not a few of them are mutually contradictory. One who must attempt some kind of explanation in particular cases is obliged to fall back upon a reluctant eclecticism, painfully aware that he has little more than personal preference to guide him in his choice.
