Unlike my previous blog posts, which have previously had a heavy forensic basis with the analysis of criminal evidence, this blog post will focus on how researchers are failing in the science of criminology...
I often get asked by friends how my current research involving the intersection of gender, sexuality, and officer bias is criminological in nature. When the same friends ask me how do I define "criminology", I have always summed it up typically like this...if psychology and sociology had a crazy drunkard encounter their child would be criminology. Criminology is not "Clarice Starling" interviewing "Hannibal Lector" from "Silence of the Lambs", nor is it determining the probability of recovering readable latent prints on the skin of a homicide victim (see my previous post on latent prints to answer that question). Criminology is the study of determining why certain individuals commit certain crimes, how to prevent and control said crimes, and the very nature and extent of criminal behavior. Criminological research is supposed to accomplish this by examining policy, society, and even to an extent how officers target certain offenders and certain crimes. The complexities of the science itself can even be as detailed as examining what actually constitutes as a crime. While criminology is not a new science, as Italian Cesare Beccaria formulated the principles of classic criminology around 1804 in Essay on Crimes and Punishments, the concepts of contemporary criminologies are deemed as such.
Often modern researchers latch onto old theoretical concepts without giving up-and-coming criminology movements a fair shot. For example, recently I read an article by Rick Nevin in which he addressed how levels of crime could be connected to high levels of lead in drinking water. (For the curious the interesting article is here: http://pic.plover.com/Nevin/Nevin2007.pdf )
While most laughed at the concept of Nevin's (2007) lead argument and additional arguments by Howard Mielke and Sammy Zahran (article here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412012000566), they did present something that no one had ever done before. Some have dismissed similar arguments in the somewhat new green criminology movement and other criminology movements, but this is where we as criminologists are failing our science.
With each criminology movement- the positivist revolution, Matza's naturalism, the Chicago School, etc.-the concepts and ideas are viewed as radical and unorthodox for the time. Sure, most criminologists laugh at Lombroso and the Italian School of Criminology in respect to cranial features determining criminal probability of individuals now, but at least they attempted to discover a different explanation for criminal behavior than previous researchers. We, as criminologists, owe it to our science to explore uncharted territories without falling back on constant regurgitated academic theoretical basic philosophies. If we have not successfully explained, discovered, treated, or cured the cause and purpose for crime with years of research with said regurgitated theories---then in essence we have failed. I urge any researcher who is reading this post to always think outside the box of what you read in textbooks---the ramblings of a dinosaur criminologist does nothing to encourage critical thinking in our field. While we must respect what has already been contributed, we must also take these concepts with a grain of salt. We should instead set sail for the uncharted waters of the criminological unknown. If you fail during your journey, at least you have attempted to do something different and solve a problem with a new criminological formula as there is no one way to solve the crime problem.
So for those young pioneers formulating new theories and concepts for our science, stay strong on your course and have the strength to face those who are critical of new theories. Look to other sciences to incorporate into criminology--like biology, psychology, and gender studies. Because in time, the theories of the criminological dinosaurs that academia holds true today will be just as laughable as Lombroso's theory of criminal atavism. Keep thinking critically and never shun those who do the same!
