Gottfredson's and Hirschi's theory has come to be known as "self-control theory." Gottfredson and Hirschi maintain that law is but one of the many forces that inhibit or fail to inhibit criminal activity; and law is no more and often less important than an array of other items, such as social values, moral codes, and the anticipated displeasure of family and friends. Although there is some empirical basis for this view, it falls short when what the law is proscribing is not a behavior that requires self-control to avoid, but rather one rooted in morality. Self-control theory also cannot explain significant amounts of human activity that are proscribed by penal codes. Crimes of omission and those that impose strict liability are an unmanageable explanatory fit with self-control theory. Other serious criminal acts that at best are yoked to an absence of self-control include terrorism conducted for political ends, campaign finance violations, and prostitution for a survival income. Gibbs (1987) is correct in concluding that "each theory should be limited to one type of crime if only because it is unlikely that any etiological or reactive variable is relevant for all crimes." 56 references