I think that the theories that explain best the findings of the articles are the sociological and theories. Psychological and biological theories are not suitable for support. I chose from the sociological theories the "Social Disorganization Theory" emanating from the Chicago School research of Shaw and McKay. According to this theory's general hypothesis "low economic status, ethnic heterogeneity, residential mobility, and family disruption lead to community social disintegration, which in turn increases crime and delinquency rates" (Sampson, R.J. & Groves, W.B., Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social-Disorganization Theory, p. 774.) The Social Disorganization Study is the theory that by virtue of the article's title actually underlies the research of Triplett & Gainey. But in large parts it also mirrors the findings of the other authors that social class, social disorder, lack of social cohesion and even racial differences are main factors causing criminal activity. Psychological theories of crime associate crime with abstractions like mental illness, intelligence, or personality. None of these factors reflects the findings of the six articles. The common assumption of the biological theories of crime is that biological factors, such as parts of the body, facial features and skull shape have an impact on a person's proneness to engage in criminal behavior. As discussed in class, these theories are not supported by any empirical data and should therefore be disregarded. None of those theories is able to support the research conclusions of the articles.

In my opinion it would be very helpful to have a coherent and coordinated...

This would require a comprehensive research agenda. The focus should be both on sociological and psychological theories not in isolation from each other but "as part of the big puzzle." Today, organizational responsibility for research is spread across a number of Federal agencies -- the National Institute of Justice, the National Institute of National Health, the National Science Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control, and several smaller programs (Monahan, J. The causes of violence, p. 1, 3). Coordination among these institutions is needed and a "concerted approach" would be recommendable. Once the research results are there and properly evaluated, programs to prevent crime should be implemented both on the federal and state level. I think it would also be very important to elaborate ways to raise parental awareness of the problem as parental supervision is imperative to prevent crime. There should be programs to teach parents to recognize potentially serious behavior of their children and -- if necessary - bring them in contact with institutions that might be of help to ease the situation before criminal behavior occurs.
List of