The Ontological and Structural Genesis of Criminality: A Comprehensive Analysis of Theoretical Frameworks, Global Divergence, and the American Carceral Paradox

Theoretical Foundations of Criminality and the Multidisciplinary Landscape of Criminological Inquiry

The study of criminality, or the genesis of deviant behavior that violates established legal codes, is a complex intersection of biological, psychological, and sociological determinants. Criminologists and researchers across these fields seek to understand not only the individual motivations for crime but also the systemic conditions that foster or mitigate its prevalence.1 This inquiry has evolved from early deterministic models to modern, reciprocally influential frameworks that acknowledge the fluidity of crime as a cultural and temporal construct.3

Historical discourse was initially defined by the Classical School of criminology, which remains a cornerstone of the United States' justice system. This perspective posits that criminal behavior arises from rational choice and the exercise of free will, where a motivated actor weighs the perceived rewards of an illegal act against the potential costs and consequences of punishment.1 Under this model, the primary mechanism for crime control is deterrence: ensuring that the cost of crime—typically in the form of certain and swift punishment—sufficiently outweighs the benefit.1 However, contemporary critiques of rational choice theory highlight that humans are rarely perfectly rational actors. Emotional states, cognitive development, and situational constraints often boundary the decision-making process, suggesting that many offenders do not engage in a "cold" calculation of utility prior to committing an act.1

Opposing the rational actor model is the Positivist School, which emerged in the late 19th century. Early proponents, most notably Cesare Lombroso, suggested that criminality was an innate, biological pathology. Lombroso’s "criminal anthropology" argued that some individuals were "born criminals"—atavistic evolutionary throwbacks characterized by physical anomalies such as sloping foreheads and receding chins.2 While Lombroso’s specific findings were eventually discredited as oversimplified and racially biased, the foundational idea that internal factors influence behavior paved the way for modern biosocial criminology.1

Today, biological and neuroscientific research identifies much more nuanced drivers. Psychophysiological measures, such as resting heart rate and skin conductance (sweat rate), have become critical indicators of antisocial behavior.3 The "fearlessness hypothesis" suggests that individuals with blunted autonomic functioning do not experience the physiological stress or fear responses that typically deter risky or stressful behavior.3 Furthermore, neuroimaging has revealed that persistent offenders often exhibit reduced brain volumes and impaired connectivity in the prefrontal cortex and amygdala—areas responsible for executive function, impulse control, and emotional regulation.3 Disruption of the "neuromoral network," which links these brain regions during moral decision-making, has been documented in patients who develop criminal tendencies following brain lesions, suggesting that biological deficits can significantly impair an individual's capacity for pro-social behavior.3

1

Psychological frameworks further enrich this understanding by focusing on the developmental trajectories of individuals. Social Learning Theory asserts that criminal behavior is learned through observation and reinforcement within one’s social environment.1 This perspective suggests that if an individual's peer group rewards or normalizes deviant acts, the individual is increasingly likely to internalize those behaviors as acceptable.1 Conversely, Control Theory, particularly Hirschi’s social bond theory, shifts the focus from why people commit crimes to why they conform. It posits that strong attachments to family, commitment to conventional goals (like education), and involvement in pro-social activities act as "social glue" that prevents deviance. When these bonds are weak or broken, the risk of criminality increases significantly.4

Sociological perspectives offer perhaps the most comprehensive view of criminality as a collective phenomenon. The concept of Anomie, developed by Durkheim and Merton, describes the psychological and social breakdown that occurs when individuals are pressured to achieve cultural goals—such as material wealth—but are denied the legitimate structural means to reach them.4 This "strain" often compels individuals to innovate through criminal means. Relatedly, Social Disorganization Theory, rooted in the Chicago School, argues that high-crime neighborhoods are characterized by a lack of informal social control and a failure of community institutions, which allows deviant subcultures like the "Code of the Street" to flourish.2

Comparative Criminality: The United States as a Global Statistical Outlier

A fundamental concern in domestic policy is whether the high rate of incarceration in the United States is a direct reflection of a uniquely criminal citizenry. Evaluation of international data suggests that this is not the case. When comparing the United States to other high-income, industrialized nations—specifically members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)—the U.S. does not exhibit higher rates of overall property crime or general deviance.7

Comparative analysis of robbery, burglary, and vehicle theft rates shows the United States frequently positioned in the median or lower quartile of Western nations. For instance, robbery rates in Belgium, Spain, and Mexico have historically exceeded those in the U.S..8 Similarly, residential burglary rates in the United Kingdom have often been higher than in many American jurisdictions.8 This indicates that the fundamental propensity for law-breaking among American citizens is not significantly greater than that of their European or Canadian counterparts.

However, the United States is a stark outlier in the category of lethal violence. Data from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) confirm that the homicide rate in the U.S. is approximately 7.5 times higher than that of other high-income nations combined.9 This disparity is driven almost exclusively by firearms. The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is 24.9 times higher than in other comparable countries, and the overall firearm death rate is 11.4 times higher.9 In a global context, 83.7% of all firearm deaths in high-income nations occur within the United States.9

8

This "American Exception" in lethality suggests that the issue is not a higher volume of criminals, but rather the nature of the crimes committed and the tools available to offenders. While an individual in London or Amsterdam might commit a robbery using a knife or intimidation, an American counterpart is significantly more likely to utilize a firearm, dramatically increasing the probability of a lethal outcome.9

Recent trends from 2023 and 2024 further complicate the narrative. FBI and Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ) data show historic declines in violent and property crimes across the U.S., with the national murder rate dropping by 14.9% and overall violent crime reaching its lowest point since at least 1969.11 Despite these improvements, public perception often lags behind statistical reality. The "doom loop" narrative—fueled by viral videos of retail theft and carjackings—often perpetuates the belief that criminality is spiraling out of control, even as the numbers suggest a return to, or improvement upon, pre-pandemic safety levels.10

Structural Drivers of the United States Incarceration Rate

If the American citizenry is not inherently more criminal than that of other developed nations, the country's world-leading incarceration rate requires an alternative explanation. The consensus among the National Research Council and leading criminologists is that high incarceration is primarily the result of specific policy choices made over the last four decades.6 These decisions increased both the likelihood of a prison sentence for any given arrest and the length of time served for that sentence.6

The Collapse of Rehabilitation and the Rise of Retribution

From the 1920s to the early 1970s, the U.S. incarceration rate remained relatively stable under an "indeterminate sentencing" model.6 This system focused on rehabilitation and individualized justice, where parole boards decided when an offender was ready to rejoin society.6 However, by the mid-1970s, a convergence of rising crime rates and academic critiques (notably the "nothing works" era) led to a collapse of this model. It was replaced by "determinate sentencing," which focused on retribution, certainty of punishment, and "just deserts".6

Policy makers shifted toward mandatory minimum sentences, "three strikes" laws, and "truth-in-sentencing" requirements. These laws often mandated that violent offenders serve at least 85% of their sentences, effectively abolishing or severely limiting parole eligibility.6 While intended to deter crime and incapacitate dangerous offenders, research suggests that the incremental deterrent effect of these lengthy sentences is modest at best, and their impact on reducing crime has been negligible compared to their role in driving prison populations to unprecedented levels.6

The "War on Drugs" and Mandatory Minimums

The "War on Drugs," initiated in the 1970s and escalated in the 1980s under the Reagan administration, has been perhaps the single greatest contributor to mass incarceration.17 This policy era transformed the justice system's response to substance use from a public health issue to a criminal legal crisis. Drug arrests tripled between 1980 and 2005, with the vast majority—more than 80%—being for simple possession rather than high-level trafficking.19

19

The impact of mandatory minimums was particularly acute in the federal system. In 1986, prior to the widespread implementation of these laws, federal drug offenders served an average of 22 months. By 2004, that average had nearly tripled to 62 months.19 Furthermore, the racially disparate enforcement of these laws—most notoriously seen in the 100-to-1 crack-powder cocaine sentencing disparity—exacerbated racial inequities. African Americans make up 14% of regular drug users but represent 37% of those arrested and 56% of those in state prison for drug offenses.19

Collateral Consequences and Iatrogenic Effects

The scale of U.S. incarceration has created "collateral consequences" that reach far beyond the individual prisoner. Millions of children are growing up with an incarcerated parent, a factor strongly linked to future developmental and behavioral issues.20 Furthermore, incarceration often creates "iatrogenic" or harmful effects: by disrupting employment prospects, housing stability, and family ties, the experience of prison can actually increase the likelihood of future reoffending.6

Community Supervision: Public Perception vs. Empirical Risk

A persistent debate in American public life centers on whether community supervision programs—probation and parole—endanger the public by keeping criminals "on the street." Citizenry generally favors a system that holds offenders accountable, but public opinion is often divided by the tension between a desire for punishment and a pragmatic focus on rehabilitation.22

The Reality of Recidivism and Public Exposure

Contrary to the perception that those on supervision drive crime waves, data indicates that the vast majority of new crimes are not committed by people on probation or parole.25 In 2023, supervision violations for new criminal activity accounted for less than 2% of all arrests in the United States.25 Specifically, only 0.5% of total arrests involved individuals on parole committing new offenses.25 These statistics suggest that people under community supervision are not committing crimes at disproportionate rates compared to the general population, despite being under higher levels of surveillance.25

Instead, the primary driver of re-incarceration from supervision is the "technical violation." These are non-criminal acts such as missing a scheduled check-in, failing a drug test, or violating a curfew.25 In 2023, nearly 200,000 people were admitted to prison for violating supervision, with over 110,000 of those being for purely technical infractions.25 This "revolving door" functions more as a pathway into prison than a support system for success, costing states an estimated $10 billion annually.25

Public Opinion and the Shift Toward Reform

Recent polling (2024) reveals a significant, bipartisan shift in public attitudes toward criminal justice. While 61% of voters say the system is "not tough enough" in a general sense, there is overwhelming support for specific, bold reforms aimed at reducing incarceration.24 Approximately 81% of likely voters—including 76% of Republicans—support criminal justice reform.27

27

This data suggests that the public does not necessarily oppose community-based corrections; rather, they favor a system that prioritizes "serious about safety" over "tough on crime" slogans.29 Voters increasingly recognize that mass incarceration is a contributor to social problems like homelessness and drug overdoses, rather than a solution to them.27

Strategic Pathways for Simultaneous Crime and Incarceration Reduction

The challenge for the United States is to decouple public safety from incarceration. Evidence from international models and innovative domestic state-level reforms provides a blueprint for achieving these twin goals.

The Nordic Model: Normalization and Reintegration

Nations such as Norway, Germany, and the Netherlands have maintained some of the lowest recidivism and incarceration rates in the world by adopting a philosophy of "normalization".30 Under this model, prison life is designed to resemble life in the community as much as possible. In Norway, where the recidivism rate is approximately 20% (compared to over 50% in the U.S.), incarcerated individuals often live in "open prisons," attend school, or work on the mainland during the day.31

A critical component of this success is the professionalization of staff. Norwegian correctional officers undergo two years of university-level training in law, psychology, and ethics, whereas some U.S. states require only six weeks of training.30 This investment in human capital facilitates "dynamic security," where safety is achieved through positive relationships and communication rather than isolation and force.30

Domestic Successes: Justice Reinvestment and Decarceration

Several U.S. states have proven that it is possible to reduce prison populations while simultaneously lowering crime rates. New York, New Jersey, and California have each achieved prison population reductions of roughly 25% over the last decade, with their violent crime rates falling faster than the national average during the same period.33

18

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Georgia have also implemented successful supervision reforms. Georgia achieved a 44% decrease in supervision violation admissions by adopting "graduated sanctions" and virtual check-ins.25 Oklahoma reclassified low-level offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, leading to a 59% decrease in probation violation admissions.25 These states demonstrate that by focusing on data-driven, risk-based supervision, jurisdictions can maintain safety while redirecting billions in correctional spending.25

The ROI of Prevention: Socioeconomic and Public Health Interventions

The most effective long-term strategy for reducing criminality is addressing the social determinants of health and economic stability. Research shows that poverty and income inequality are primary indicators of violence and recidivism.34

Investing in socioeconomic interventions yields a significantly higher return on investment (ROI) than traditional carceral models. For example, community-based mental health and substance use treatment is estimated to return $12 for every $1 spent by preventing future crime and reducing health care expenses.34 Similarly, workforce development and summer job programs for youth can reduce involvement in violence by 35% to 45%.34

34

The removal of social safety nets, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI), has been shown to increase criminal charges by 20% and income-generating crimes by 60%, with the cost of the resulting incarceration often exceeding the savings from the benefit cuts.34 This suggests that a "serious about safety" agenda must include robust investments in healthcare, housing, and living wages to build healthy communities from the ground up.29

Integrated Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

The origins of criminality are not rooted in a unique pathology of American citizens, but in a confluence of biosocial vulnerabilities and structural impediments. The United States' high incarceration rate is a policy-driven anomaly that has failed to yield a proportional return on public safety. To simultaneously decrease criminality and reduce the carceral footprint, the United States must move toward a system based on restraint, parsimony, and evidence-based intervention.6

Recommendations for a Safe and Just System

A comprehensive approach to reform should prioritize the following:

1. Sentencing Reform: Eliminate mandatory minimums and "three strikes" enhancements that decouple punishment from individual culpability and offense severity.6
2. Supervision Reform: Shift the focus of probation and parole from policing technical compliance to providing reentry support. Adopt graduated sanctions to minimize incarceration for non-criminal violations.25
3. Public Health Alignment: Treat drug use and mental health conditions as health issues through diversion to community-based treatment rather than criminalization.20
4. Economic Empowerment: Invest in workforce development, living wages, and stable housing, particularly in high-poverty neighborhoods where the gap between cultural goals and legitimate means is widest.34
5. Professionalization of Corrections: Adopt international standards of staff training and prison normalization to ensure that the time spent in custody reduces, rather than increases, the risk of future reoffending.30

By embracing these strategies, the United States can transition from an era of mass incarceration to a sustainable model of public safety that respects human dignity and utilizes taxpayer resources more effectively. The data clearly indicates that when citizens are provided with the structural means to achieve stability, and when the justice system focuses on rehabilitation over retribution, both crime and incarceration rates can decline in tandem.

Works cited

1. Major Criminology Theories and How They Affect Policy - Kent State Online, accessed January 31, 2026, https://onlinedegrees.kent.edu/blog/criminal-behavior-theories
2. An Overview and History of Criminology | NJ Criminal Defense Lawyers, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.newjerseycriminallawattorney.com/legal-articles-information/an-overview-and-history-of-criminology/
3. Biological explanations of criminal behavior - PMC, accessed January 31, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6640871/
4. Theories and causes of crime | SCCJR, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SCCJR-Causes-of-Crime.pdf
5. Theories of Crime | Overview of Key Criminological Approaches - SozTheo, accessed January 31, 2026, https://soztheo.com/theories-of-crime/
6. Chapter: 3 Policies and Practices Contributing to High Rates of ..., accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/18613/chapter/5
7. GLOBAL STUDY ON HOMICIDE - Unodc, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/Booklet_4.pdf
8. Comparisons of Crime in OECD Countries - Civitas, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf
9. Violent death rates in the US compared to those of the other high-income countries, 2015, accessed January 31, 2026, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30817955/
10. Crime Trends in U.S. Cities: Year-End 2024 Update - Council on ..., accessed January 31, 2026, https://counciloncj.org/crime-trends-in-u-s-cities-year-end-2024-update/
11. UCR Summary of Reported Crimes in the Nation, 2024, accessed January 31, 2026, https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/resources/reports/UCR%20Summary%20of%20Reported%20Crimes%20in%20the%20Nation%202024.pdf
12. Nationwide 2024 Crime Data Demonstrate the Value of Violence Prevention and Local Law Enforcement - Center for American Progress, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/nationwide-2024-crime-data-demonstrate-the-value-of-violence-prevention-and-local-law-enforcement/
13. California passes the tough-on-crime Proposition 36 | US elections 2024 | The Guardian, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/05/california-prop-36-results
14. 2025 Public Safety Agenda for Law Enforcement - R Street Institute, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.rstreet.org/research/2025-public-safety-agenda-for-lawenforcement/
15. The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences (2014), accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.nationalacademies.org/projects/DBASSE-CLAJ-11-01/publication/18613
16. Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/growth-incarceration-united-states-exploring-causes-and
17. Mass Incarceration in the United States - Ballard Brief - BYU, accessed January 31, 2026, https://ballardbrief.byu.edu/issue-briefs/mass-incarceration-in-the-united-states
18. Texas: Increased Incarceration Had Limited Effect on Reducing Crime for Over Two Decades | Brennan Center for Justice, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/texas-increased-incarceration-had-limited-effect-reducing-crime-over-two
19. A 25-Year Quagmire: - The War on Drugs and Its Impact on ..., accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/A-25-Year-Quagmire-The-War-On-Drugs-and-Its-Impact-on-American-Society.pdf
20. The Drug War, Mass Incarceration and Race - Unodc, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civil/DrugPolicyAlliance/DPA_Fact_Sheet_Drug_War_Mass_Incarceration_and_Race_June2015.pdf
21. Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2025 | Prison Policy Initiative, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2025.html
22. Pew Study: strong majority of voters favor alternatives to incarceration, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.cjcj.org/news/blog/pew-study-strong-majority-of-voters-favor-alternatives-to-incarceration
23. Attitudes Examined Toward Community-Based Corrections | Office of Justice Programs, accessed January 31, 2026, https://ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/attitudes-examined-toward-community-based-corrections
24. Biden and Trump voters, crime and policing, and election 2024 - Pew Research Center, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/06/crime-policing-and-the-2024-election/
25. Key Findings - Supervision Violations and Their Impact on ..., accessed January 31, 2026, https://projects.csgjusticecenter.org/supervision-violations-impact-on-incarceration/key-findings/
26. Supervision Violations and Their Impact on Incarceration - CSG Justice Center, accessed January 31, 2026, https://projects.csgjusticecenter.org/supervision-violations-impact-on-incarceration/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2024/01/Supervision-Violations-Impact-2024_508.pdf
27. New Polling Shows Criminal Justice Reform is a Winning Issue for 2024 Election - FWD.us, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.fwd.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/New-Polling-Shows-Criminal-Justice-Reform-is-a-Winning-Issue-for-2024-Election.pdf
28. New Polling Confirms Ongoing Support for Criminal Justice Reform Ahead of November 2024 Election - Fwd.us, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.fwd.us/news/new-polling-confirms-ongoing-support-for-criminal-justice-reform-ahead-of-november-2024-election/
29. WE NEED TO BE “SERIOUS ABOUT SAFETY,” NOT “TOUGH ON CRIME”: - Vera Action, accessed January 31, 2026, https://veraaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Serious-About-Safety-Deck-September-2024.pdf
30. Northern European Prisons Illustrate Focus on Dignity | Brennan Center for Justice, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/northern-european-prisons-illustrate-focus-dignity
31. Incarceration and Recidivism: Lessons from Abroad - Antonio Casella, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.antoniocasella.eu/nume/Deady_march2014.pdf
32. Norway's Prison System: Investigating Recidivism and Reintegration - CCU Digital Commons, accessed January 31, 2026, https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=bridges
33. Fewer Prisoners, Less Crime: A Tale of Three States | The ..., accessed January 31, 2026, https://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Fewer-Prisoners-Less-Crime-A-Tale-of-Three-States.pdf
34. What Really Lowers Crime, accessed January 31, 2026, https://sentencing.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/sentencingnvgov/content/Meetings/2022/08.24.22%20NSC%20Mtg.%20Agenda%20Item%208%20PFJ%20What%20Really%20Lowers%20Crime.pdf
35. The path to public safety requires economic opportunity: Trends and solutions in urban, suburban, and rural communities | Brookings, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-path-to-public-safety-requires-economic-opportunity/
36. Sentencing Reform - Legal Action Center, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.lac.org/work/priorities/restoring-opportunities/sentencing-reform