CRIMINOLOGISTS HAVE DECREASED THEIR DEPENDENCE ON SOCIAL SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE TO DEFINE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, AND HAVE BEEN ABANDONING A SEARCH FOR CAUSES OF SUCH BEHAVIOR. THERE IS A GENERAL TREND TOWARD A DIRECT CONCERN FOR TAKING ACTION AGAINST CRIME. AN AWARENESS IS GROWING THAT THE VARIABLES IN SOME CRIMINOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES ARE NOT READILY MANIPULABLE AND THUS ARE NOT READILY ADAPTABLE TO INTERVENTIONIST CONTROL, AND THAT CERTAIN INTERVENTIONIST POLICIES WHICH WERE HAPHAZARDLY BASED ON SOCIAL SCIENCE THEORY DID NOT DRAMATICALLY REDUCE CRIMINALITY, EVEN THOUGH MUCH MONEY WAS SPENT. RESEARCH AND SCHOLARLY ATTENTION IS BEING FOCUSED ON IMPROVEMENT OF THE EFFICIENCY OF REPRESSIVE EFFORTS. THREE 'NEW CRIMINOLOGIES' ARE DESCRIBED WHICH REPRESENT ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES FOR CRIMINOLOGISTS. THE FIRST WAS DEVELOPED IN THE 1920'S AND WAS BASED ON AN EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR EMERGING FROM MALFUNCTION OF THE ENDOCRINE GLANDS. THE SECOND APPROACH EXPLAINED CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IN RELATION TO THE SOCIETY AS A TOTALITY AND MAINTAINS THAT THE ABILITY OF A PERSON TO CONFRONT STRUCTURES OF POWER, DOMINATION, AND AUTHORITY MODIFIES BEHAVIOR. THE THIRD THEORY STRESSES REPRESSION IN THE FORM OF DEFENSE AND DETERRENCE. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT POSITIVE, CONSTRUCTIVE PROGRAMS ALONG WITH NEW GENERALIZATIONS FOR UNDERSTANDING CRIMINOLOGICAL DATA ARE NECESSARY. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (DAG)