The thesis explored is a very specific variation on the general theme of strong commonalities between structural-functionalism and radical, or Marxist, sociology. Structural-functionalism is discussed only as a form of theoretical logic. In this respect, the theoretical structure of functionalist analysis is defined. The argument is presented that this structure is displayed in even the defining theoretical characteristics of radical criminology. Moreover, the use of this structure is demonstrated with examples from throughout the range of topics studied by radical criminologists. The implications of this argument-the identity of radical criminology as structural-functionalist theory--are then briefly sketched, with the identification of several problems. These problems include that of confusing objective observable consequences (functions) with subjective dispositions (aims, motives, purposes); that of assuming certain cultural or social forms to be indispensable for achieving certain consequences; and that of creating an inferior criminology from radical criminology by using bad functionalism. Finally, the metatheoretical dimension of radical criminology, or its value stance, is examined as being quite different from that of structural-functionalism. This last discussion is extended to illustrate how the value stance of radical criminology may represent an advantage in the use of structural-functionalist theory. Four notes and 33 references are provided. For related documents, see NCJ 70048-59 and 70061-62.