dependent variable (adult male deviance) exists. Thus the validity of the conclusion the article puts forth is questionable, as it may not be generalizable to all western societies.The article uses the simplest statistical analysis of acts (of criminal behaviour) isolated in a single types, specifying neither more detailed forms or variations nor phases or sequences through which it might move. The statistics show a relatively small differences between what would appear, to the lay reader, as inconsequential differences regarding the numbers of cigarettes smoked by the pregnant mother linked to the incidence of criminal behaviour by adult males. There is no information about whether control groups were used in the study, or if there was even consideration of control in the research, other than the few social factors mentioned.The reporters stating observations of adult male criminal behaviour (especially persistent behaviour) around maternal smoking during pregnancy serves as a manoeuvre of definition. Defining male criminal behaviour in terms of maternal smoking suggests that maternal smoking must be bad, as we already know -3that criminal behaviour is bad. The evil-causes-evil fallacy can thus also be explicated through the writers operational definitions.The article is also sensational and controversial because there is presently a back-lash by smokers for their rights in the face of the general anti-smoking sentiment that has risen in recent years in western society. Also implicit in the articles tone is the stigmatization of smoking, which also serves to reflect the general attitude of anti-smoking that exists today. The article states that the researcher accounted for other factors, such as SES, parental, psychiatric problems, age, and the fathers criminal history. However, there are many other important factors that could contribute to the cause of male criminal behaviour, such as single parent homes, Child Se...
