Akers' second edition of CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES: INTRODUCTION AND EVALUATION might not, on the surface, interest many political scientists who study law and politics. However, to jump to such a conclusion would be unfortunate as the book carries decided implications for law and public policy. Furthermore, Akers' concise summaries, sharp critique and balanced evaluation could serve as a model for those of us who try to explain the less deviant (perhaps!) behavior of judges and other political actors.
Akers' purpose in this student-friendly text is straightforward: "to review the basic concepts and principles of criminological theories and to evaluate their adequacy as explanations of criminal and deviant behavior or of the criminal law and justice system" (iv). Organized in eleven chapters, the book consists of separate discussions of the major theories that have been featured in the journal CRIMINOLOGY over the past thirty years. Since CRIMINOLOGY is the major publication of the American Society of Criminology, the oldest and most academic of the many criminology and criminal justice associations in existence today, this strategy insures that the consideration will be comprehensive.
In the introductory chapter Akers offers a succinct explanation of the differences between and the relationship of theories directed to crime and deviance and those that focus on the composition and enforcement of criminal law. Here, he also outlines the criteria against which any theory can be evaluated. Although Akers' analysis generally focuses on empirical validity, this explanation is particularly useful for the target audience, i.e. students. Six of the following chapters deal with major theories of crime and deviance: deterrence and rational choice; biological and psychological theories; social learning; social bonding and control theories; labeling; and social disorganization, anomie and strain. Three additional chapters direct attention to those theories that relate more to criminal law as well as to criminal behavior. Here, Akers provides succinct discussions and reviews of conflict, Marxist or critical, and feminist theories. In the final chapter, the author returns to the more abstract issue of theory evaluation and outlines the three distinct ways in which theories can be tested. Although Akers calls the reader's attention to single theory and more competitive testing and, in fact, relies on related research in the preceding chapters, he concentrates on integration in this final section.
Akers does an outstanding job in all of these chapters and is an ideal author for such a text. An internationally renowned criminologist, he is a former president of the American Society of Criminology and a leading proponent of social learning theory. While one might suspect that the substantive focus of his own research might predispose him to frame his review of social learning theory in the most positive light, Akers is as dispassionate in noting its strengths, weaknesses, and empirical validity as he is in speaking to the merits of the other theories that he considers. Furthermore, his published research relates directly to the logical consistency and empirical validity of other theoretical frameworks.
Although Akers does not offer this assessment of criminological theories with an applied objective, he does emphasize that several of the theories under review have had pronounced public policy effects. This is most obvious in his contention that "deterrence doctrine remains the philosophical foundation for modern Western criminal law and criminal justice systems," (20) particularly as it has been invoked to defend particular criminal sanctions. In light of contemporary criminal justice policies, especially those laws that carry more severe penalties to deter offenders and thereby reduce crime, policy makers would be well advised to pay attention to Akers' theoretical assessments. In his discussion of deterrence and rational choice theories, for example, he observes that the "important question that research on deterrence attempts to answer is, does the actual or perceived threat of formally applied punishment by the state provide a significant marginal deterrent effect beyond that assured by the informal control system?" (20) In answer, Akers concludes, "the best answer seems to be yes, but not very much." (20) If, then, legislators hope to deter crime by imposing more severe criminal sanctions (e.g. death penalty, three strikes provisions etc.), they are likely and sadly to be mistaken.
Lest one conclude that Akers' analysis is driven or colored by personal policy preferences, it is important to emphasize that he is as critical of more "liberal" theories as the aforementioned and more "conservative" deterrence perspectives. For example, Akers offers a compelling critique of labeling theory and also calls the reader's attention to the fact that in the 1960s, it "captured the imagination of social science researchers, theorists, and practitioners alike." (109) Similarly, in his consideration of social disorganization, anomie, and strain theories, Akers reminds us that some of the Chicago sociologists who advanced these theories also helped to develop several projects in lower class, high delinquency areas where the programs met with mixed success. (117)
In offering these and other conclusions, Akers' analysis is empirically grounded in regular reference to research directed to the empirical testing of the theory in question or related propositions. As a result, the accompanying bibliography is virtually an index of major, modern criminological research. Occasionally, though, Akers does offer a more political observation. For example, in his discussion of anomie and strain theory, he observes that Cloward and Ohlin's (1960) theory contributed to the "Mobilization for Youth" programs enacted in New York City in the 1960s. Although Akers argues that all varieties of anomie theory are limited in their ability to explain crime and that the continuation of equal-opportunity and job-training programs may not have the strongest of empirical foundations, he does acknowledge that the original "Mobilization for Youth" effort was never completed because of intense political opposition. (125)
In the final analysis, CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES: INTRODUCTION AND EVALUATION reminds us that both crime and criminal law do not lend themselves to simplistic conceptualization. Implicit in this rejoinder is the fact that equally simplistic policy efforts are destined to fail. Considering the nature of criminal law, Akers concludes that the more reductionist interpretations (e.g. conflict, labeling, Marxist, feminist) do not "fit(s) well with the data on disparities in the administration of criminal justice" and that evidence favors pluralistic conflict models. Similarly, with respect to criminal and delinquent behavior, Akers argues that
[t]he older biological theories of criminality have largely been discredited. Even the more recent and sophisticated biological theories of criminal behavior fare poorly in comparison with sociological theories. Psychological approaches that rely on emotional disturbance or personality traits do not perform as well as sociological or social- psychological explanations. Among the latter, strain and labeling theories have the weakest empirical support. Evidence in favor of deterrence and control/bonding theories range from weak to moderate. Social learning theory has received the strongest and most consistent empirical support. Structural theories of crime rates are seldom tested directly, but the research that has been conducted favors social disorganization/anomie, and the relationships found in this research range from moderate to strong (206).
In the wake of the rather equivocal foundations for most theories of crime, Akers closeswith a discussion of theory integration. Acknowledging that space precludes an extensive summary, he nonetheless offers concise explanations of the efforts of several criminologists to fuse two closely related theories in more comprehensive, explanatory efforts. In this, Akers does not argue that simple theory testing or comparisons are no longer useful. Rather, he implies that the complexity of crime and criminal law merit comparable research efforts. Policy-makers who are tempted to assume simplistic causes of crime and to advance equally simplistic policy proposals would be well advised to take heed and to consult Akers' analysis. Political scientists who, like criminologists, are also concerned with human behavior, albeit of those on the other side of the fence, should also take heed and eschew single or reductionist conceptions of human behavior and decision-making.
REFERENCE
Cloward, Richard and Lloyd Ohlin 1960. DELINQUENCY AND OPPORTUNITY. Glencoe, IL.: Free Press.