ABSTRACT
Theories that look for characteristics putting people at risk for crime also rely on forces that render criminals more like offending trees and snakes than like responsible individuals. Indeed, classical theories in criminology attribute responsibility for crimes in such a way as to make criminals appear to be no more responsible than killer trees or injurious snakes. When a person is said to have committed a crime, that person is assumed to have a motive, to have acted intentionally, to be responsible for some criminal action. Sykes and Matza turned a spotlight on the reasons criminals use to pave the way to their criminal actions. As a theory of criminal behavior, the construct theory notes that criminals do not consider the description that an action is against the law as a reason to refrain from acting. The theory is empirical and seems to provide an account of what we know about relative risks for criminal behavior.
