Criminological thinking is formed by the anthropocentric and secular worldview that first emerged during the early modern period, whereby the rational justification of the criminal law (and its consequences) became a condition of its legitimacy. This has, however, led to an ambivalent understanding concerning the rational for punishment. On the one hand, a socio-critical notion exists which opposes social injustices and demands political responses to them; on the other hand, there is an interest in the neutral, unbiased discovery of facts and knowledge. This has resulted in the continued bipolar development of criminology In Germany, the interest of criminology in the development of practical knowledge initially dominated; in the German Empire, this interest focused on individuals who were considered, biologically, to be prone to violence. However, given the dominance of psychiatrists in the field, attempts to connect criminology to sociological thinking remained sparse. Instead, the theoretical dispute over the biological or social roots of crime led to fruitless compromises being made. In the Weimar Republic, the biological view became more radicalized. This led to eugenic crime policy approaches, which were later used by the Nazis to develop a race-ideology. In the early years of the German Federal Republic, the biological explanation of crime was still preferred. It was not until the "golden age" of the social market economy, that welfare-related declarations slowly gained the upper hand. Influenced by the student movement of 1968, "young" criminologists criticized the inflexible and incrusted state of research. As a result, crime was separated into moral- and punishment-related phenomena. The radical and, at times, ideologically overloaded criticism of conventional understanding continues to stand in stark contrast to the majority opinion which does not question the legitimacy of the criminal justice system and, instead, assists it.