One of the fundamental issues in criminology that influences the adoption of different approaches to etiology and crime prevention strategies is recognizing human as the committer of crime. Is man a free being or not? Is it a social being or separated from the society? This study wants to review theories of criminology in a descriptive-analytical way and examine how each of them has answered these two questions, and finally, describes the combined theory of postmodern criminology in relation to the human subject who commits a crime. Early theories of criminology regarded human beings as a separate entity from society, and among them, some emphasized the active role of the human subject, such as the classical school and some, like Positivist criminology, saw man as a compelling being with inevitable destiny. With the influence of sociology’ s teachings on criminology, man changed from individual to social being, but from a philosophical point of view, theories such as Marxist criminology held the passivity of the human subject and approaches such as labeling believed in the activity of the human subject. In general, criminology, until the 1990s, was hesitant between two options, a: free man with countless choices, and b: man with an inevitable destiny, and a choice “ c” that combines “ a” and “ b” wasn’ t a trendy belief of that time. Starting this decade however, postmodern criminologists, by appealing to Anthony Giddens’ s constructivist theory, while accepting the sociality of man, regard him as both a social constructor and a social shaper, and, more precisely do not deny human active role emphasizing on influential role of social structures at the same time. Postmodern criminologists emphasize on education for the purpose of reinforcing the active role of human beings in shaping discourses whereby human beings are transformed from passive beings into active and discursive individuals.