I find this interesting to do, but it is difficult as we are typically given little background on the offenders, and more often than not, they are unknown (obviously). But, does anyone have any examples of cases that some of the more popular criminological theories can explain?

For instance, I think it is safe to say that the Matthew Chase and Gretchen Burford cases are prime examples of routine activities theory. In both instances, robbery/murder occurred when the victims were performing ordinary, daily, mundane tasks and happened upon an offender in a place where security was minimal.

Kevin Poulsen's hacking activities may be attributed to differential association theory, although it is hard to say not knowing his personal background. However, having known some hackers (years ago in high school), it was obvious to me that they "learned" to hack from other hackers, and along with this learning of techniques came a learning of justifications and rationalizations in which to downplay or explain their behavior as not being offensive.

Any thoughts?

Well, I'm not a criminologist, but I am a sociologist, and many consider criminology to be a subfield of sociology. Criminology studies the cause and distribution of crime in a society - patterns predicting patterns.....not why particular individuals commit crimes. That's for criminal psychologists to figure out on an individual basis. You can apply a "case study" approach to groups of people...say inner city gangs...or say a group of parollees in a particular state system...but the theories are not designed to address individuals or individual crimes.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not trying to discourage discussion!! In fact, I think it's a really interesting thread. I'm just saying there's a reason you're finding it difficult to apply these theories.

Well, I'm not a criminologist, but I am a sociologist, and many consider criminology to be a subfield of sociology. Criminology studies the cause and distribution of crime in a society - patterns predicting patterns.....not why particular individuals commit crimes. That's for criminal psychologists to figure out on an individual basis. You can apply a "case study" approach to groups of people...say inner city gangs...or say a group of parollees in a particular state system...but the theories are not designed to address individuals or individual crimes.

I see what you're saying, and please forgive me, as I have been reading up on criminological theories only recently, and my knowledge is limited. I guess my question is why can't theories be used to address individual crimes?

Obviously, there are many factors that contribute to a person's decision to break the law. There are also many outside factors, that when combined with a motivated offender, can lead to the commission of a crime. All of these factors are important.

But, looking at the larger picture, why couldn't the Matthew Chase robbery/murder, for example, be used to illustrate routine activities theory? It fits the definition of the theory pretty well, and there are a slew of other crimes that we could probably lump into this category based on similarity when the totality of the circumstances of each act is considered. We can apply the theory to such a group, so why not individual crimes within the group?

Re-reading this post, I may have answered my own question with the second paragraph, but I'll put this out there and see what you think.

Thanks for responding.

Re-reading this post, I may have answered my own question with the second paragraph, but I'll put this out there and see what you think.

Thanks for responding.

Hee. I think (?) my main point is that there are anecdotes and there are patterns based on empirical (repeatable, valid, scientific) evidence. Hopefully, criminological theories are meant to address patterns and not individuals. It doesn't mean you can't pick an individual crime and find evidence of a theory there, but we can find anecdotes to "disprove" any theory or pattern you can throw out. For example, serial killers tend to be men...but what about Eileen Wournos? Individual crimes or criminals might not conveniently "fit" into theories depending on what we know about the circumstances. I just wanted to bring this up in case there was any debate about the theories themselves and how well one case or another might apply. Maybe I'm getting a little ahead of the discussion!! :crazy:

Anyways, I'm interested in what you've learned...I have a basic knowledge of criminology and deviance, but don't know much about criminological theories themselves.

It doesn't mean you can't pick an individual crime and find evidence of a theory there, but we can find anecdotes to "disprove" any theory or pattern you can throw out.

And there in lies the problem with theories in general. They are not perfect. No one theory is going to cover all the bases and explain all behaviors and crimes.

For example, I happen to be a strong believer in rational choice theory - the belief that anyone is capable of committing a crime, and that the decision is made much like any other important decision one would make in their life...by weighing the pros and cons. If the perceived rewards of committing the act outweigh the risks and fears associated with getting caught, then you have a crime in the making. However, how does this explain "heat of passion" or impulsive crimes? How does it explain "thrill seeking" crimes such as vandalism in which the criminal reaps no tangible rewards? Rational choice theory offers no explanations for such behavior, and there lies the flaw.

So yes, I can see why theories are more easily applied to groups and specific types of crimes as a whole. Rightly so. I guess my original point was that it is easy to pigeonhole certain crimes (in this case, crimes on UM) and associate them with theories. I keep bringing this up, but I think the Matthew Chase and Gretchen Burford cases just scream out routine activity theory. The Steve Hadley case is quite indicative of Merton's strain theory. The Dale Kerstetter case, if we assume he is guilty, makes me think of strain theory. Of course, these crimes were caused by a myriad of other factors. But, I think its cool when you can see elements of criminological theories in the crimes themselves. When you analyze such a situation, and can say "yep, that sounds like --insert name-- theory..." it adds a lot more credibility to the theory and brings it to life in a way.

Just my two cents.