Criminological theory and its critics

Abstract

Claims against theory have been brought in ethics and have found its way in Criminology. Louden has raised doubts about the assumptions that antitheory critics make regarding criminological theory, but, instead, this paper finds evidence of its plausibility. Some authors have suggested in this line that Criminology could focus in empirical and prevention research and avoid theoretical thinking. Sklar mentions three important reasons for skepticism that equally apply to criminological theory but, in spite of them, most critics do not reject theory altogether, but just some aspects of it, usually related to its use in mainstream, positive Criminology. Moffitt´s dual theory is offered as an example. Crime is understood as a field of disputes about discourses and practices so that there are fights, including linguistic ones, regarding the demands on criminologists and their publics. This paper argues that antitheory offers considerations that cannot be ignored and holds a potential to improve theory in our context, but that pseudotheory –a product easy to consume– poses a real danger.