Is Criminology a Science
The question of whether criminology can be regarded as a true science has long occupied a central place in criminological and philosophical debates. Since its emergence as an independent field of study, criminology has sought to explain criminal behavior through systematic observation, empirical research, and theoretical frameworks inspired by the natural and social sciences. However, this scientific ambition has not gone unchallenged. A philosophical current has emerged that fundamentally questions the scientific nature of criminology, arguing that crime is not a natural fact but a social and legal construct shaped by moral values, cultural norms, and political choices. This debate raises profound epistemological issues concerning the limits of scientific knowledge when applied to human behavior.
From a philosophical perspective, the core of the controversy lies in the tension between determinism and free will, objectivity and normativity, explanation and understanding. Can human behavior, particularly criminal behavior, be subjected to scientific laws similar to those governing physical phenomena? Is it possible to achieve objectivity in a field so closely connected to legal definitions and moral judgments? To what extent does the variability of crime across societies undermine the possibility of establishing general scientific principles in criminology? These questions form the foundation of the opposing trend to the scientific nature of criminology and reflect broader philosophical concerns about the nature of social sciences.
In light of these issues, the present study seeks to examine the intellectual foundations of the opposing trend and to assess the validity of the criticisms directed at it. Accordingly, the central research question guiding this analysis is whether the rejection of the scientific nature of criminology constitutes a coherent and convincing position, or whether it overlooks the methodological and empirical advances achieved within the field. This main question gives rise to several subsidiary inquiries: Does the normative character of crime necessarily prevent scientific analysis? Can empirical methods coexist with philosophical interpretations of human behavior? And is it possible to reconcile individual moral responsibility with causal explanations of crime?
To answer these questions, we will adopt the following division.
- First Axis: The Opposing Trend to the Scientific Nature of Criminology
- Second Axis: Criticisms Directed at the Opposing Trend
The Opposing Trend to the Scientific Nature of Criminology
The opposing trend to the scientific nature of criminology emerged as a critical reaction to attempts at treating crime and criminal behavior as subjects governed by fixed scientific laws similar to those found in the natural sciences. Supporters of this trend argue that criminology cannot be considered a true science because its subject matter is not stable or objectively defined. Crime, according to this view, is not a natural phenomenon but a legal and social construct that varies across societies, cultures, and historical periods. What is criminalized in one legal system may be tolerated or even accepted in another, which makes it difficult to establish universal principles or laws applicable to all contexts. As a result, criminology is seen as dependent on changing legal norms rather than on objective scientific observation.
This trend is also deeply influenced by philosophical perspectives that emphasize human free will, moral responsibility, and individual choice. Opponents of the scientific classification of criminology reject deterministic explanations that attempt to link criminal behavior exclusively to biological, psychological, or social causes. They argue that reducing crime to causal mechanisms ignores the conscious and voluntary nature of human action. From this standpoint, criminal behavior cannot be predicted or explained in the same way as physical or biological phenomena, since individuals are capable of reflection, resistance, and moral decision-making. Consequently, criminology is viewed not as an exact science but as a field of interpretation that seeks to understand crime rather than explain it through rigid scientific models.
Moreover, the opposing trend highlights the normative dimension of criminology, particularly its close relationship with criminal law. Since criminal law is based on values, ethical judgments, and political choices, criminology inevitably inherits these subjective elements. This dependency, critics argue, undermines claims of scientific neutrality and objectivity. Instead of producing universal truths, criminology reflects societal values and power structures, which further distances it from the methodological standards traditionally associated with scientific disciplines.
Criticisms Directed at the Opposing Trend
The opposing trend to the scientific nature of criminology has been widely criticized for overlooking the substantial empirical and methodological advancements that have reinforced criminology’s scientific foundations. One of the most significant criticisms concerns its dismissal of criminal statistics as a reliable scientific tool. Statistical analysis has enabled criminologists to identify consistent patterns in crime rates, offender profiles, recidivism, and victimization across different social contexts. Although crime is legally defined, statistical regularities reveal measurable social realities that can be objectively observed, compared, and analyzed. The systematic use of criminal statistics demonstrates that crime is not a purely random or subjective phenomenon, but one that follows identifiable trends influenced by social, economic, and demographic factors.
In addition, critics argue that the opposing trend underestimates the importance of clinical studies and empirical observation in understanding criminal behavior. Clinical experiments conducted in prisons, psychiatric institutions, and rehabilitation centers have provided valuable insights into the psychological and pathological dimensions of criminality. These studies have contributed to the development of diagnostic tools and treatment programs, particularly in cases involving mental disorders, addiction, and personality deviations. By relying on direct observation, case studies, and controlled clinical environments, criminology has demonstrated its capacity to apply scientific methods adapted to the complexity of human behavior, even if these methods differ from those used in the natural sciences.
Moreover, contemporary advances in genetic research, particularly studies related to (ADN), have further challenged the rejection of criminology’s scientific status. While modern criminology does not endorse biological determinism, genetic studies have revealed correlations between certain genetic predispositions and behavioral tendencies, especially when combined with environmental factors. DNA analysis has also become an indispensable scientific tool in criminal investigation, reinforcing the objectivity and reliability of criminological and forensic research. These developments highlight that criminology evolves alongside scientific progress and incorporates advanced technologies to enhance the accuracy of its findings.
From a historical perspective, critics of the opposing trend emphasize the foundational contributions of early criminologists such as Cesare Lombroso and Enrico Ferri. Despite the legitimate criticisms directed at Lombroso’s biological theories, his empirical approach, based on observation, measurement, and comparison, marked a decisive shift toward scientific inquiry in the study of crime. Similarly, Enrico Ferri’s theory of multiple causation represented a major advancement by integrating biological, psychological, and social factors into a unified explanatory framework. Ferri’s work demonstrated that criminology does not rely on a single deterministic explanation but adopts a comprehensive scientific perspective that acknowledges complexity and interaction between causes.
conclusion
The scientific nature of criminology has long been a subject of debate between two main perspectives. The opposing view argues that criminology lacks full scientific rigor due to the complexity of criminal behavior and the difficulty of subjecting human conduct to controlled experimental methods, as is done in the natural sciences. Supporters of this view emphasize the overlapping psychological, social, and biological factors that influence crime, which make it challenging to establish fixed and universal laws. In contrast, the supportive perspective maintains that criminology is a genuine scientific discipline, grounded in systematic methodologies such as statistical analysis, comparative research, field studies, and empirical observation. From this standpoint, the scientific character of criminology does not depend on producing absolute or deterministic laws, but rather on its consistent use of the scientific method to study crime as a complex social phenomenon.