4 Theories of Individual Criminal Behavior

Classical theory and deterrence

The classical school developed in the eighteenth century, when punishments were often arbitrary and extremely harsh. Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham argued that people generally have the capacity to choose their actions. A person may offend when the expected benefits seem greater than the expected costs.

This perspective makes punishment a tool of deterrence. Laws should be public and predictable, and penalties should be proportionate to the offense. Beccaria argued that punishment should be sufficiently certain and prompt; increasing severity alone is not necessarily the most effective deterrent.

For example, a person considering shoplifting might decide against it if they believe they are likely to be caught. This illustrates how perceived risk and reward can affect choices, especially when an offense involves planning.

Classical theory emphasizes individual agency, accountability, and incentives, and supports fair, consistent limits on state punishment. Its limits become clearer when people do not make careful calculations: choices may be impulsive, made under pressure, or shaped by circumstances and capacities that differ among individuals. The approach is less complete if it treats people as equally informed and self-controlled decision-makers.

Positivist theory and risk

The positivist school developed partly in response to the limits of explanations based only on free choice. It applies systematic observation and scientific methods to investigate factors associated with offending. Positivist approaches commonly consider biological, psychological, and social influences, and often describe behavior as shaped—not simply determined—by those influences. They also encourage studying differences among individuals and tailoring prevention or treatment to identified needs.

Early positivist theories sometimes made sweeping claims that offenders could be identified by fixed biological traits. Such claims are not a sound basis for judging an individual. More careful explanations recognize that a risk factor may be associated with offending without causing it on its own, and that group-level patterns do not establish whether a particular person will commit a crime.

For example, researchers might examine whether impulsivity, exposure to violence, or unstable social conditions are associated with a greater likelihood of offending. A finding about increased risk does not mean that everyone with one of these experiences becomes an offender.

Positivism directs attention to measurable causes and possibilities for prevention, support, and rehabilitation. Its use of scientific methods can help test explanations rather than rely on assumption. However, causal claims are difficult to establish: factors may overlap, and an observed association does not prove cause. Positivist approaches can also overemphasize individual deficits and overlook how laws, opportunities, and social conditions shape crime and criminal justice responses.

Psychological theories

Psychological theories are not a single theory; they differ in the mental processes and learned behaviors they emphasize.

• Learning and reinforcement: People can learn behaviors, attitudes, and expectations through experience. Behavior that is rewarded, modeled by others, or repeatedly practiced may become more likely. This approach can explain how a person might learn to treat theft as acceptable or profitable in a particular setting.

• Cognitive and moral development: Reasoning about rules, consequences, and other people’s rights may influence decisions. Some approaches examine how moral judgment and perspective-taking develop over time.

• Personality and self-regulation: Traits such as impulsivity or difficulty regulating emotions may contribute to risk-taking for some people and in some situations. A trait alone does not determine criminal behavior.

• Psychodynamic approaches: Older psychoanalytic explanations linked behavior to unconscious conflict or early relationships. These ideas have influenced discussion of development, but particular claims should be assessed against evidence rather than assumed to explain crime.

Psychological theories can help explain why people respond differently to similar situations and can inform individualized interventions. Their limits include difficulty measuring inner processes, the risk of treating correlation as cause, and the danger of labeling individuals. These explanations are strongest when specific and evidence-based, and when considered alongside social context rather than used to reduce crime to a person’s character or diagnosis.

Comparing and evaluating explanations

Consider a planned burglary. Classical theory asks whether the person expected a worthwhile reward and a low risk of being caught. A positivist account asks what individual, developmental, or social factors may have contributed to the behavior. A psychological account might examine learned beliefs about crime, decision-making, or self-regulation.

These explanations can complement one another: choices occur within circumstances, and both circumstances and individual characteristics can shape choices. Different offenses and individuals may involve different combinations of causes, so no single perspective accounts for all offending.

A theory can be assessed by how clearly it explains behavior, whether its claims can be tested, and whether evidence supports its proposed mechanism. No perspective should be used to infer that a person will offend solely from a group characteristic or a single risk factor. Careful explanations distinguish risk from certainty and consider people in context.