Titlebook: Defining Crime; A Critique of the Co Michael J. Lynch,Paul B. Stretesky,Michael A. Long Book 2015 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Nature

松紧带

https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137479358crime; law; Nation; objectivity; research

惊惶

Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Nature America Inc. 2015

GIDDY

继而发生

modest

elastic

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-92860-4s different from a scientific concept and measure. We have explored some of the initial issues related to the intersection of the criminal- law definition of crime and science in our discussion of the objectivity of the criminal- law definition of crime in Chapter 3. In this chapter, we turn our att

tic-douloureux

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-92860-4e individual— that is, criminology is strongly associated with and influenced by microlevel studies of crime that direct attention to locating the causes of crime within an individual’s psychology or biology or their individual relationships to others and to social institutions. The assumption that

MILL

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-92860-4ch, criminologists who write about the causes of crime may not always be referring to the criminal- law definition of crime— and because notions of crime vary across time and space, this is certainly understandable. As a result, criminolo-gists must pay attention to metaphysical issues (Dupre 1995;

gene-therapy

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-92860-4independent of the criminal law. We will refer to this definition as the criminological definition of crime (CDC) and hope to develop an analysis that leads to the creation of an independent definition of crime that has scientific utility. This definition is criminological because it is derived inde

opportune

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-92860-4 what we see as major problems in criminology that are a result of when crimi-nologists simply accept the criminal- law definition of crime. First, as we have argued, criminologists tend to assess hypotheses in ways where they are not likely to be rejected, and instead of rejecting weak results, the