It is argued that much of the polemic related to radical criminology is directed at a 'straw man,' a monolothic conception of the perspective that fails to consider important philosophical, theoretical, practical, and nominal differences among those who write radical criminology (i.e., 'radical criminologists'). Furthermore, although radical criminologists share many philosophical, theoretical, and practical assumptions, it is emphasized that they hold to these assumptions with differing degrees of sensitivity, sophistication, and subtlety - a point often ignored by critics and enthusiasts alike. Consequently, this study explicates not only some of the shared assumptions of radical criminologists, but also some of the differences. (Publisher abstract)