Why is the evidence for Freud's explanation of criminality considered limited?

In the field of criminology, Sigmund Freud’s explanation of criminality centers on the internal conflict between instinctual drives (the id), the rational mediator (the ego), and internalized moral codes (the superego). Freud posited that criminal behavior arises from a failure of the superego to develop completely, leaving the individual unable to adequately restrain the id’s impulses.1

The empirical evidence supporting this psychoanalytic theory is considered thin. While Freud’s work provided a foundational psychological perspective on how socialization and parental attachment influence the development of an internal control system, the theory lacks robust, verifiable data to confirm that incomplete superego development is a primary or universal cause of criminal behavior.12

Because human behavior is complex and influenced by a wide array of biological, social, and environmental factors, modern criminologists often find that single-theory explanations—including those rooted in early psychoanalysis—are insufficient to account for the diverse nature of criminal activity. Consequently, while Freud’s concepts remain historically significant, they are not supported by the rigorous empirical validation required to serve as a comprehensive explanation for crime.321