ABSTRACT
Criminologists have devoted considerable attention to understanding crime, its causes, distribution, and control since the first study of criminal statistics by Adolphe Quetelet in 1831 (Hagan, 2011: 105-7). A wide range of explanations for crime have been produced in an effort to understand and explain crime and to suggest why some people commit crime. These explanations are extraordinarily diverse in nature and content, and include biological, psychological, small-group interaction, self-control, social control, learning, and social disorganization perspectives among many others (Hagan, 2011). In some cases, these approaches include reference to the content of law, law making, and the role of law enforcement agencies. Other views refer to broad concepts such as culture, to the postmodern conditions of life, and to more specific and narrow issues such as the role of immigration. The vast majority of these explanations produce rather weak results with respect to the accurate prediction of crime, and in statistical terms, one is often better off flipping a coin than relying on the prediction produced by empirical assessments of criminological explanations of crime. Among approaches that eschew empirical analysis in favor of qualitative examinations, the lack of any form of standardized measurement means that the contribution of these theories to our knowledge of crime cannot be assessed in any rational manner, and whether or not one finds these approaches useful is merely a matter of opinion (see Sherman, 2005).
