Ten Blind Spots in Criminological Theory
The quest for the “best” theory of crime is as old as the discipline itself. For more than 200 years, scholars have tried to explain why people break the law. But the more theories emerged, the clearer it became: no single theory fully explains crime. Many fall short, focus on isolated aspects, or are ideologically biased. This article analyzes key deficits in classical and contemporary crime theories — and shows why a critical reassessment is necessary.
1. Limited Explanatory Scope of Many Theories
Most established crime theories focus on youth and street crime. Whether strain theory, learning theory, or control theory — they typically center on young, working-class males. While this may be empirically grounded, it leaves large parts of the crime spectrum out of view. White-collar crime, environmental harm, state violence, or cybercrime are often excluded. Many theories are confined to what is visible in official crime statistics, thereby reinforcing a narrow image of deviance.
Early explanations such as biological theories — as proposed by Lombroso or Sheldon — tried to explain delinquency through physical traits, heredity, or neural dispositions. Even modern variants like biosocial theories or neurocriminology use biological correlates of deviant behavior. But such models tend to pathologize deviance and fall short by ignoring social, cultural, and political influences. In critically reflective criminology, they now play only a marginal role.
2. Reduction to Situational Factors
Theories such as Situational Crime Prevention or the Routine Activity Theory emphasize the role of opportunity in the commission of crime. While they offer valuable insights for preventive strategies (e.g., CCTVClosed-circuit television used for monitoring and surveillance., target hardening), their focus on situational factors neglects the social, psychological, and structural causes of crime. Why someone takes advantage of an opportunity remains unanswered. Underlying causes such as poverty, social exclusion, or inequality are largely ignored.
3. Ideologically Charged Theories
In the 1980s and 1990s, theories rooted in a conservative law-and-order logic gained traction. Proponents of “Right Realism” — such as Hirschi and Gottfredson’s General Theory of Crime — attribute delinquency to low self-control. These theories naturalize deviance, psychologize social problems, and primarily target socially marginalized groups. Elite crime or institutionalized violence are rarely addressed. The political subtext: repression instead of prevention.
While Right Realism is often criticized for its repressive implications, left-leaning theories also warrant scrutiny. Some critical criminological approaches risk romanticizing crime or portraying it as a justified response to inequality. Victim perspectives may be sidelined. Sociologist Howard S. Becker famously asked: “Whose side are we on?” — a powerful reminder that even critical research must not marginalize harm to victims, whether physical, economic, or digital.
4. Neglect of Social Harm
Many theories follow the legal definition of crime — that which is formally prohibited. But this definition is politically constructed and selective. What about legally sanctioned but highly harmful practices, such as tax avoidance, environmental degradation, or deadly border regimes? The concept of social harm is rarely addressed, even though it captures some of the most pressing issues facing society.
5. Lack of Integration and Interdisciplinarity
CriminologyThe scientific study of crime, criminal behavior, prevention, and societal reactions to deviance within and beyond the criminal justice system. is rich in theories but poor in integrated approaches. Many models exist side by side without being systematically connected. They focus either on micro-, meso-, or macro-levels. A comprehensive theory should combine biographical, structural, cultural, and situational factors — and draw on related disciplines like sociology, psychology, political science, or economics.
6. Eurocentrism and Lack of Global Perspectives
Most dominant criminological theories come from the Global North — particularly the U.S. and Western Europe. This results in a dominance of Western ideas about law, statehood, individual responsibility, and deviance. Southern, Indigenous, or postcolonial perspectives are largely absent. A decolonial criminology must not only critically reassess existing theories but also create space for new epistemologies: Who gets to theorize — and whose voices are systematically excluded?
7. The Gap Between Theory and Practice
Not all theories that gain academic recognition are practically relevant — and vice versa. Some models make their greatest impact not in seminar rooms, but in police reports — often in simplified or distorted forms. A notable case is the Broken Windows Theory, which has been implemented in problematic ways under zero-tolerance policing (e.g., New York City). Policy compatibility can distort theoretical intentions — and justify repressive interventions.
8. Missing Intersectional Perspectives
Many crime theories fail to account for how class, gender, ethnicity, and other social categories intersect. Yet feminist criminology shows that criminalization is inherently intersectional: Who gets labeled criminal, who receives punishment, and who is recognized as a victim all depend on structural discrimination. Future-oriented theories must address intersectionality as a form of power.
9. Media and Popular Culture as Amplifiers
The impact of theories often depends not only on their analytical depth but on their communicability. Media, politics, and pop culture shape which models become known and influential. Terms like “moral panic”, “broken windows”, or “superpredator” gained traction largely through media use. Theories with catchy metaphors, clear blame, and simple narratives have a competitive advantage — even when their empirical basis is weak.
10. The Role of Academic Power Structures
Which theories prevail is not only a scientific but also a political question. Citation pressure, funding structures, language (English), and institutional networks all shape which theories are heard, cited, and taught. Radical, complex, or interdisciplinary approaches often struggle — not because they are inferior, but because they don’t fit the academic system. Theories often mirror the very power structures that shape their production and dissemination.
Why Some Theories Thrive — and Others Fade
Beyond explanatory strength, one must ask: Why do some theories thrive — and others vanish? The answer often lies in less obvious factors.
1. Empirical Testability
Scientific theories must be falsifiable. Can the theory be confirmed or refuted through observation? Cultural criminology, for example, is strong in interpretation but weak in testability. In contrast, many psychological or rational-choice models are easily operationalized — but often overly simplistic. Empirical testability is important, but not the only criterion.
2. Citation as a Marker of Influence
Citation counts are often seen as indicators of relevance. A frequently cited theory is assumed to be influential and fruitful. Yet citation is also shaped by power, language dominance, textbook presence, and academic networks. The General Theory of Crime is widely cited in the U.S. but receives more criticism in Europe.
A major bibliometric study by Cohn, Farrington, and Skinner (2023) analyzed the most influential criminologists from 1986 to 2020. The findings showed that theories like the General Theory of Crime, Routine Activity Theory, and Rational ChoiceA theory that assumes individuals make decisions by rationally weighing costs and benefits to maximize their personal advantage. Theory were cited most — not only due to content, but due to simplicity, empirical clarity, and policy relevance. The study suggests that academic influence often depends more on format and visibility than explanatory depth.
3. Catchy Names and Media Appeal
A powerful but underrated factor is the name of a theory. Models like “broken windows,” “strain theory,” or “moral panic” succeeded in part due to their memorable phrasing. Theories with vivid, emotional, or metaphorical language travel more easily across academia, media, and politics — boosting their influence.
A personal anecdote: At a conference in England on moral panic, I had the chance to hear Stanley Cohen speak — one of his final public appearances. When asked what makes a theory successful, he smiled and said: “A catchy name!” A surprisingly precise answer that shows: theories must be not only true, but also communicable.
Conclusion
The question of the “best” criminological theory cannot be answered objectively — because every theory reflects its time, purpose, and political lens. Some explain more, others ask the right questions — but none says everything. To understand crime, we must ask not only what is explained — but also what is excluded. Perhaps the best theory is not the one with the most citations or the neatest model, but the one that helps us think more critically, contextually, and constructively about crime.
References
- Becker, H. S. (1967). Whose side are we on? In: Social Problems, 14(3), 239–247. https://doi.org/10.2307/799147
- Cohn, E. G., Farrington, D. P., & Skinner, G. C. M. (2023). Most Influential Scholars in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1986–2020. SpringerBriefs in Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28409-8
