The Scientific Adequacy of Criminological Concepts

T IHE meaning of the word "crime" is generally clear in the mind of the man on the street. Violations of the law are sufficiently commonplace so that there is a minimum of confusion among laymen over the problem of what constitutes "crime." Various agencies such as the newspapers, novels, pulp magazines, and radio dramas tend to reinforce this knowledge about crime. To the scientist, however, the peace of mind which comes from complete knowledge is absent. There are too many basic questions yet to be answered with respect to problems of crime. A cursory examination of the literature dealing with the concept "crime" will reveal a considerable amount of confusion and disagreement among the criminologists as to what causes crime, who is the criminal, and what constitutes crime.' The problem underlying this confusion among the scientists is this: Are the existing conceptual tools adequate to deal scientifically with the plienomena generally known as crime? Accordingly, it shall be the purpose of this paper to examine some of the foremost concepts of crime and to analyze the adequacy of each for scientific research. This involves such questions as: (1) Should criminology be limited to the study of convictions obtained under the criminal law? (2) Can the concept of "white-collar crime" lend itself to fruitful research in criminology? (3) Should the study of crime include anti-social or immoral behavior? (4) Can the conception of conduct norms and their violation be adapted to the study of crime? The absence of clear-cut answers to this type of question led the writer to the present study. The proposition is suggested here that our definitions of crime, the criminal, anti-social behavior and conduct norms are inadequate for scientific research. To elaborate a theoretical framework or to develop techniques of research is not the immediate concern. The following "criteria of adequacy" are submitted in order to test the sufficiency of the concepts under question. (1) Precision. Crime should be defined in such a manner that questions as to whether a certain kind of behavior is criminal or something else are "'almost automatically" eliminated. At the same time, any behavior which fits the definition, or s ould, in terms of the intrinsic qualities, must be included as criminal behavior. When various types of activity may be classed as criminal or noncriminal, depending on who constructs the classification, an understanding of criminal behavior is impossible. (2) Universal Application. To be of the greatest scientific value crime must be defined in terms of the universal and intrinsic elements of the subjectmatter. In other words, behavior that is defined as criminal at any given time in any given place should also be defined as criminal at a different time and/or place. This is the ideal which can hardly be hoped for at the present time. Nevertheless, the concept should include intrinsically similar types of behavior. (3) Causation and Prediction. To answer the question why, crime must be defined so that the causes, or the cause, may be determined, and subsequently, that criminal behavior may be predicted. (4) Theoretical Significanzce. A definition of crime should properly constitute a part of a larger theoretical framework. This is an ultimate necessity if criminology is to be scientific. As to the procedure of our analysis, the first three of our criteria shall be applied as the discussion proceeds, while the last shall be postponed for separate discussion. To avoid possible misunderstanding, a word about the terms "science" and "cause" is neces1 Cf. Paul W. Tappan, "Who Is The Criminal?" American Sociological Revie-w, 12: 96-102 (Feb. 1947); Thorsten Sellin, Culture Conflict and Crime (New York: Social Science Research Council, Bulletin 41, 1938); Florian Znaniecki, "Social Research In Criminology," Sociology and Social Research, 12: 307-22 (March-April 1928); E. H. Sutherland, "White-Collar Criminality," American Sociological Review, 5: 1-12 (Feb. 1940), "Is 'White-Collar Crime' Crime?" Ibid., 10: 132-39 (April 1945), "Crime and Business," The Annals, 217:112-18 (Sept. 1941); Robert M. Lindner, Stone Walls and Men (New York: Odyssey Press, 1946); Jerome Michael and Mortimer J. Adler, Crime, Law and Social Science (New York: Harcourt Brace 1933).