More handpicked essays just for you.
Psychological trait theories of crime
Criminal behaviour biological and psychological
Biological causes of criminal behavior
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
For thousands of years researchers have developed theories in an attempt to understand why people commit crime. Although, many theories have been created to establish a link between man and criminology many researchers suspect different factors lead man to criminal behavior. Furthermore, we will analyze the following theories, which include positivist theory, biological theory, and psychology theory to correlate their relationship to crime and identify the differences among them beginning with the positivist theory. The positivist theory is based upon universally valid and invariant natural laws and those laws are discoverable through reason (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). Furthermore, natural laws are superior to laws created by human beings or the …show more content…
Furthermore, criminologists studied the following physical differences in attempt to establish biological links to criminal behavior, which include physiognomy, phrenology, criminal anthropology, body types, and heredity (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). In addition to those studies, advances in modern technology have permitted criminologist to examine brain function and structure in relation to crime (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). Consequently, there was tremendous skepticism surrounding early biocriminolgy due to lack of validity; however, modern biocriminologists explore how biological factors and environmental factors lead to the development of certain traits that are linked to antisocial behavior (Bohm & Vogel, 2011, p. 42). Over the last twenty years researchers have uncovered biological factors that predispose individuals to antisocial behavior, and researchers characterize antisocial behavior by a violation of the basic rights of others (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). Subsequently, antisocial behavior is classified as crime, violence, delinquency, and other behaviors outside the societal norms (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). Additionally, after examining thirty-nine studies, researchers concluded that genetic and environmental factors interact to give rise to biological and social risk factors for antisocial and violent behaviors (Bohm & Vogel, 2011, p. …show more content…
A reoccurring theme that was presented in all three theories was the relationship between intelligence and crime. Although, intelligence was present in all three theories the factors that affected intelligence were different among the theories. In the positivist theory people with high intelligence were considered the leaders of society, and they were responsible for assimilating natural laws throughout society (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). In the biological theory several factors were presented that could inhibit a person from possessing the ability to refrain from aggressive or criminal behavior, which includes environmental factors to being exposed to toxic substances (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). Finally, the psychological theory the main premise between intelligence and crime is the affect intelligence has on the ability for a person to control or restrain their
There are many theories that can be applied to different cases that have occurs in Americas history. The two theories that are choses for this paper are the trait theory and under the trait theory is psychological which is “abnormal personality and psychological traits are the key to determinant of anti-social behavior. There is a link between mental illness, personality disorders and crime (Siegel, 2014). The second theory is the Choice theory which “criminals weigh the cost and benefits and make a conscious, rational choice to commit crime” (Siegel, 2014). This paper will show how a theory can be applied to a person and a crime. Some of the cases that are being presented some will not agree but up us all about the person perspective.
...nd genetic findings are now unquestionable the evidence is too strong to ignore this new breakthrough has new implications towards crime prevention. The next decade will reveal new discoveries regarding specific genes that cause violent behaviour. These findings could result in new drugs being used to correct the neurotransmitter brain abnormalities that cause violence. (www.news.bbc.co.uk). The theories that Lombroso and Bowlby concluded in what makes a criminal still stand in the 21st century. Having looked at the case study above it can give an insight into criminals looking and acting alike, although they may not have all the characteristics of Lombroso’s theory, they do have some of the attributes as Lombroso suggests. In society today it is thought that children who are not close to their mothers do tend to go out and commit crimes (Williams, S, K 2008).
... middle of paper ... ... Understanding psychological theories helps criminologists to design appropriate correctional strategies to mitigate crime. Works Cited Eysenck, H.J., & Gudjonsson, G.H. d. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a The causes and cures of criminality.
There are many reasons that a person commits a crime. There are multiple schools of thought when it comes to crime and the offender. Are they born predisposed to commit crime or are they taught the behaviors required to break the law? Of these many aspects we often ignore the possibility that genetics and our biological make up may be in part to blame for a person’s decision to violate the law.
I do not believe that any of the biological perspectives hold merit for explaining criminal behavior. The answer to this question if complicated, as Bernard, Snipes, and Gerould (2016) note, biological factors may increase the likelihood of one committing a criminal act, but it is in no way a guarantee that one will engage in criminal behavior. People may have certain biological factors engrained in their DNA that may cause them to gravitate towards a certain mindset or even lifestyle, however just because someone may be predisposed to a certain action or feeling, it does not mean that they will commit a crime.
Biological crime theory describes that an individual is born with the desire to commit a certain crime. Evolutionary factors influence an individual’s involvement in criminal behavior. “Biological theories focus on aspects of the physical body, such as inherited genes, evolutionary factors, brain structures, or the role of hormones in influencing behavior” (Marsh, I, 2006, 3). Murderers that are innate to kill are born with factors such as mental illnesses that are the driving force as to why one may kill. Because of the biological crime theory, some individuals, though rare, are able to plead insanity. This is because the actions of the individual are said to be beyond their control (Ministry of Justice, 2006, 3).
Wilson, James and Herrnstein, Richard. "Crime & Human Nature: The Definitive Study of the Causes of Crime" New York: Free Press, 1998.
If we studied through the history of criminal theory, spiritual and natural theories are taken as major theories of causation of crime. During medieval period, spiritual explanations were taken as punishment given by god for doing wrong things and any natural disasters like flood, fires, etc were evaluated as curse of high power. In modern period, the basic theories of causation of crime are classical theory, biological theory, psychological theory, cultural theory and conflict theory. The classical theory explains that free will acts as center of crime giving example of free will of children that may commit crime which cannot be paid once it committed. In the 19th century, the biological theory got public attention when Cesare Lombrose suggested that criminals cannot be identified by examining their body structures, number of toes, etc giving the research data that determined that ordinary people are mostly involved in crime than militants. Now, this theory is followed by Modern biological theory which signifies that chemical imbalance in brain results violence activities. It supports remarkable example of violence occurred due to lower portion of serotonin chemical and abuse of drugs alcohol (Fishbein 1990). Fishbein(2000) mentioned the relation of the damage of frontal lobe of brain and antisocial behavior. Similarly, psychological theory explains that mental illness of person convicts crime and is supported by Freud’s concept of id, ego and superego. Freud mentioned that any emotional trauma in children of 5 yrs age or above may result long –lasting negative influence. Likewise, the most common but important theory is sociological theory that deals with the conviction of crime ...
In criminology, examining why people commit crime is very important in the ongoing debate of how crime should be handled and prevented. Many theories have emerged over the years, and they continue to be explored, individually and in combination, as criminologists seek the best solutions in ultimately explaining what makes a person act the way they do and the causes for these actions. In addressing the social learning theory and the trait theory, we explore the similarities and the differences and where to look for on improvement.
Theories of crime inferred include the biological theory; positivism, atavism and somatotype. Positivism infers that offenses are made due to many factors outside of the offender’s control, making them crime prone (White and Haines, 2000, pp. 36). Atavism believed ‘criminals were biological throwbacks … people more primitive’ (Bernard and Vold et al., 2010, pp. 38). People committing the coward punch ‘don’t ever develop and many are delayed’ and that it is an atavistic feature that is ‘very primitive.’ (Munro, P. 2014, pp. 3) explains Hickie, executive director of the Brain and Mind Research Institute, inferring positivism and atavism. The somatotype theory explains crime is committed by people with muscular builds who enjoy physical activity involving crime. Most criminals are seen as mesomorphs who are muscular, action orientated and aggressive, similar to McNiel’s character who is ‘A labourer with a love of bodybuilding ‘ (Munro, P. 2014, pp. 3).
They also explore the myths about the connection between genetic factors and criminal behavior. The first myth they looked at was “Identifying the Role of Genetics in Criminal Behavior Implies That There Is a “Crime Gene.”” This myth is dismissed because of the unlikelihood that that a single gene is responsible for criminal behavior. The second myth they look at is “Attributing Crime to Genetic Factors is Deterministic.” This myth is also easily dismissed because of the fact that just because someone has a predisposition to a certain behavior doesn’t mean that the person will take on that behavior.
There are many theories and explanations as to why crime occurs or as to why some individuals become criminals while others do not, some theories or explanations focus on the individual and other theories focus more on the social elements that can cause and individual to engage in criminal activity. It is difficult to make a concrete conclusion on which theories or explanations are better or are more conniving than the others given the situational nature of crime. Through examination of psychological positivism, focused on the personality traits of the individual, and strain theory, it will become clear that all cases of crime are different and are decided by a number of different factors in regards to the individual meaning that no one theory or type of theory, whether it be social or individual, is more a more convincing theory compared to another.
There are various theories within the biological explanation as to why individuals commit criminal behaviour, these include: genetic theory, hereditary theory, psychosis and brain injury theory. In the next few paragraphs examples of each will be shown.
Different schools of thought propose varying theoretical models of criminality. It is agreeable that criminal behaviour is deep rooted in societies and screams for attention. Biological, Social ecological and psychological model theories are key to helping researchers gain deeper comprehension of criminal behaviour and ways to avert them before they become a menace to society. All these theories put forward a multitude of factors on the outlooks on crime. All these theories have valid relevancy to continuous research on criminal behaviour.
Theories that are based on biological Factors and criminal behavior have always been slightly ludicrous to me. Biological theories place an excessive emphasis on the idea that individuals are “born badly” with little regard to the many other factors that play a part in this behavior. Criminal behavior may be learned throughout one’s life, but there is not sufficient evidence that proves crime is an inherited trait. In the Born to Be Bad article, Lanier describes the early belief of biological theories as distinctive predispositions that under particular conditions will cause an individual to commit criminal acts. (Lanier, p. 92) Biological criminologists are expected to study the “criminal” rather than the act itself. This goes as far as studying physical features, such as body type, eyes, and the shape or size of one’s head. “Since criminals were less developed, Lombroso felt they could be identified by physical stigmata, or visible physical abnormalities…characteristics as asymmetry of the face; supernumerary nipples, toes, or fingers; enormous jaws; handle-shaped or sensible ears; insensibility to pain; acute sight; and so on.” (Lanier. P. 94). It baffles me that physical features were ever considered a reliable explanation to criminal behavior. To compare one’s features to criminal behavior is not only stereotypical, but also highly unreliable.