This failure to explain has meant that criminologists have had little of use to say to policymakers. The failure to explain is linked to a weak commitment to theory in criminology, as reflected, for example, in the pages of the "Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology." Tentativeness and nihilism on the question of theory have been products of our doubts that crime is a sufficiently homogeneous construct for explanatory purposes. I argue that these doubts may be misplaced. There may be little hope for a single general theory of crime. But at the very least, a number of competing general theories may supply useful policy heuristics to practitioners. (Author abstract)