A general theory of crime is an ambitious undertaking. While the theory in this book purports to be general, it is at the same time modestly partial. It is partial firstly because I am conscious of the need for theories of particular types of crime to complement the general theory.

The book does not proceed by systematically demolishing competing theories in order to show the superiority of the theory of reintegrative shaming. For example, the theory provides an account of why women engage in less crime than men. There are some who are persuaded that the explanation for this association is genetic. I have not seen it as my task to attack this competing explanation, but only to argue for the plausibility and consistency with such evidence as exists of the explanation provided by the theory. Prior to a theory having been systematically tested, it is not the time for contentions that earlier theories which have been more satisfactorily evaluated should be jettisoned in favor of the new theory. That may well be appropriate when the evidence is in to show that any variance explained by an older theory, and more, can be explained by the new one. More likely, we would hope ultimately to be in a position to argue that the new partial theory explains a substantial amount of variance not accounted for by pre-existing partial theories.