What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Crime?: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Explaining Criminal Behavior
Why Crime? reviews the very latest empirical evidence with regard to the risk factors that produce antisocial and criminal behavior. The authors meaningfully integrate risk factors identified by more than a dozen academic disciplines that increase the odds of antisocial behavior and criminality. The result is a new interdisciplinary theory that helps break down traditional barriers and overcomes the "disciplinary myopia" that plagues criminological theory. Unlike the typical criminological theory text, Why Crime? actually advances the state of criminological theory as well as the field of criminology. PowerPoint slides available upon adoption. To view sample slides from the full 31-slide presentation, click . Email bhall@cap-press.com for more information. "Whether your interest is macro or micro, society or genes, Why Crime? is a tour-de-force through the criminological literature. Professors Robinson and Beaver have brilliantly explicated the interdisciplinary research on crime in a concise, fun-to-read text." ― Dr. Matt DeLisi, Iowa State University "What Robinson and Beaver have achieved is striking. Not only do they integrate a sound understanding of biology's role in criminal conduct into a broader biosocial paradigm, but they do so in a way readers will find accessible. This book will certainly draw the ire of some, but for serious students of crime it will force a reconsideration of cherished beliefs. For this reason alone, Why Crime? makes a valuable contribution to the study of crime." ― Dr. John Paul Wright, University of Cincinnati "[T]he most ambitious, comprehensive interdisciplinary attempt so far to move integration of criminological theory to new heights." ― Drs. Mark Lanier, University of Central Florida and Stuart Henry, Wayne State University "[E]ngaging, extremely well written, [a] major contribution to criminology… a tour de force for the criminologist who wants to learn something about the biosocial perspective." ― Dr . Anthony Walsh, Boise State University "[The] integrated systems theory ... serves as an example of some of the best work now being done in the area of theory integration." Dr. Frank Schmalleger, University of North Carolina―Pembroke, professor emeritus, and Justice Research Association, director
534 pages, Paperback
First published March 16, 2003
2 people are currently reading
6 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 7, 2021
I'd rate this at about a Sam Harris on the Gatekeeper Scale. The author seems confused.
He does this weird flitting around associated with the trendy idea that disciplines are autonomous social programs, yet he also wants to have it both ways by affecting a concern for biology and inter-disciplinarity. Everyone is looking at the same world, and those topics considered are all levels of biological organization. You can't be like that.
There's no possibility of "social (not biology)" learning. Any learning theory that works off the assumption that social is independent of biology entails a contradiction and necessarily precludes all possibility of knowledge because that contradiction is carried into every effort to make sense of the world. You can't say you're seeing something in the world that can't possibly exist. That's dumb. Why would you try to fix something (criminology) by adopting bad things at a higher level of analysis that disregards everything at lower levels? Well, if you read the chapters on the lower levels, you see why.
You don't have to look further than the individual organism level of analysis to see what I'm getting at. The author doesn't seem to understand the point of the theoretical constructs that play key roles in personality psychology(5fm) and intelligence work(g). The author also does some weirdness around intelligence research where he pretends it's an open question as to whether or not it actually involves genuine measurement of intelligence, is biased etc. Questions that were dealt with forever ago. Even the APA admits intelligence tests aren't biased (see Intelligence Knowns and Unknowns).
He seems to think the lower levels are the dubious and icky realities, when, in reality, the goober goop of the sociologist and the criminologist are the fishy bodies of knowledge and thought. I thought the added complexity made understanding more difficult? Crazy how that disappears when it's inconvenient.
He does this weird flitting around associated with the trendy idea that disciplines are autonomous social programs, yet he also wants to have it both ways by affecting a concern for biology and inter-disciplinarity. Everyone is looking at the same world, and those topics considered are all levels of biological organization. You can't be like that.
There's no possibility of "social (not biology)" learning. Any learning theory that works off the assumption that social is independent of biology entails a contradiction and necessarily precludes all possibility of knowledge because that contradiction is carried into every effort to make sense of the world. You can't say you're seeing something in the world that can't possibly exist. That's dumb. Why would you try to fix something (criminology) by adopting bad things at a higher level of analysis that disregards everything at lower levels? Well, if you read the chapters on the lower levels, you see why.
You don't have to look further than the individual organism level of analysis to see what I'm getting at. The author doesn't seem to understand the point of the theoretical constructs that play key roles in personality psychology(5fm) and intelligence work(g). The author also does some weirdness around intelligence research where he pretends it's an open question as to whether or not it actually involves genuine measurement of intelligence, is biased etc. Questions that were dealt with forever ago. Even the APA admits intelligence tests aren't biased (see Intelligence Knowns and Unknowns).
He seems to think the lower levels are the dubious and icky realities, when, in reality, the goober goop of the sociologist and the criminologist are the fishy bodies of knowledge and thought. I thought the added complexity made understanding more difficult? Crazy how that disappears when it's inconvenient.
Displaying 1 of 1 review