Biological Factors And Criminal Behavior

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.

There are more contemporary biological theories that have since developed. However, most are still nearly impossible to prove true; for example, the genetic theory of crime in fraternal and identical twins. This study is supposed to provide evidence that those who are born with the same genetically heritable trait are more prone to crime than fraternal twins or siblings because of the ...

... middle of paper ...

...dual will engage in criminal behaviors…biological factors are said to increase the likelihood that an individual will engage in criminal behaviors when these factors interact with physiological or social factors.” (Bernard, Snipes, Gerould, p. 55)

In contrast, Emile Durkheim argued that crime is a functional part of society; each society has its own rates and types of crimes. Durkheim stated, “What is normal, simply, is the existence of criminality, provided that it attains and does not exceed, for each social type, a certain level, which it is perhaps not impossible to fix in conformity with the preceding rules.” (Durkheim, p. 61) Durkheim did not see crime as something habitual or as a symptom of a diseased society. I agree with Durkheim’s opinion of crime and society, I think that crime will not entirely disappear; instead the form itself will change. (Durkheim)