Theory as Causal Explanation

Abstract

Chapter 1 highlighted Comte’s belief that theory should give explanations of causes by expressing propositions regarding relationships between causes, outcomes, and unchanging natural laws. Such propositions are known as nomological propositions. Most criminologists subscribe to the premise that discovering causes and laws that will permit us to predict outcomes is the rightful task of criminology. This is even true of criminologists working in the hermeneutic tradition. Understanding (verstehen) of the world of offenders and victims is taken to be explanatory concerning causes of crime and victimization, just as much as the measurement of the behaviour of offenders and victims provides statistical models upon which statements of the likelihood of certain outcomes are based. That is, criminological theories, and criminological and social study in general are taken to provide explanations of the causes of crime rather than mere descriptions (for example) of criminal or other social events. However, the key terms in the above assumption that criminological theory should be explanatory of the causes of crime (in order that crime may be reduced) are far from straightforward; nonetheless, they are ideas that have been largely taken for granted by criminologists in particular.