More handpicked essays just for you.
Strengths and limitations of biological explanations of crime
Biological theory of crimes
Biological theory of crimes
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Biological perspectives of criminology suggest that law defying behaviors are inherently determined by variables outside of the individual’s control. A concern regarding the biological perspective theories initially would be the legal implication of a biological explanation alone. Mens Rea definition: legal concept pertaining to one’s malicious intent and volition to commit a crime, and is necessary for a conviction (American Law Institute, 1962). (Cheung, B.Y. and Heine, S.J. (2015), pg. 1734) Intent implies that a person who commits a crime is determined to commit said crime and completion of that criminal act is the sole/intended purpose of the individual’s actions. The Biological perspective would suggest that the biological factor weigh
When we look at how fragile each one of our lives are, we need to take a minute and realize the different characteristics that form us into who we are today. Studies have shown that there are characteristics within the behavior of an individual that can be linked to the specific behaviors demonstrated by an offender that would classify them as a psychopath. Along with other research that looks into an individual’s genetics to see if that plays a role in defining or making a psychopath. John Allen Muhammad, also known as the D.C. sniper, was labeled as a psychopath when he terrorized D.C. for two weeks, taking thirteen victims and killing ten of them. This paper will go over the behaviors that constitute psychopathy, and the behaviors that indicate psychopathic individuals such as John himself. It will also go over John’s life history of what caused him to commit these acts of violence.
Many of the traditional criminological theories focused more on biological, psychological and sociological explanations of crime rather than on the cost and benefits of crime. More conservative approaches, including routine actives, lifestyle exposure and opportunity theories have clearly incorporated crime rate patterns as a fundamental part of analyzing the economics of crime. Crime statistics are important for the simple reason that they help put theories into a logical perspective. For example, a prospective home owner may want to look at crime rates in areas of potential occupancy. On a more complex level, it helps law enforcement and legislators create effective crime reduction programs. Furthermore, it also helps these agencies determine if crime prevention programs, that have been in effect, have been successful. There are many factors that influence the rates of crime including socio economic status, geographical location, culture and other lifestyle factors. More specifically, Messner and Blau (1987) used routine activities theory to test the relationship between the indicators of leisure activities and the rate of serious crimes. They discussed two types of leisure actives, the first being a household pastime, which primarily focused on television watching. The second type was a non-household leisure event which was consisted of attendance to sporting events, cinemas, and entertainment districts. The focus of this paper will be to study the effects that substantial amounts of leisure activities have on the offender and the victim. Leisure activities not only make a crime more opportunistic for offenders, it may also provide offenders with motivation to engage in criminal activity. On the other hand, it may also be argue...
Introduction: Criminology is a scientific approach to the study of crime and why it occurs. Criminologists examine this both on the individual and on the societal level. Meaning, why do individuals commit crime, and how society reacts to those crimes. As we look at the root causes of crime, we begin to notice certain aspects of people’s lives that causes them to offend - like a poor social standing, or perhaps an individual’s peer group who may allow or even support negative influences. We can also try to understand why some individuals choose NOT to offend and live pro-social lives despite negative external influences. These concepts and ideas are known as crime theories. There are many and they are wide-ranging.
1. There are a couple of differences and similarities between the classical and biological theories of criminology. The biological theories of crime support the idea that an individual commits a crime due to their biological make-up and had criminal tendencies because of certain abnormalities that an individual may have had and not because the offender in their right mind chose to commit the crime. The classical theory has the belief that every individual has their own right in the way in which they act upon, so they commit a crime because they choose to do so, not because it is in their biological make-up.
This paper explores three criminological theories as to why Jeffrey Dahmer committed his crimes. Although these approaches vary in terms of defining the cause of crime, one thing is certain, there is no single cause of crime; the crime is rooted in a diversity of causes and takes a variety of forms depending on the situation in which the crimes occur. However, the published articles vary in their definitions and uses of Criminological Theory. Rawlins (2005) suggest that the criminal phenomenon is too complex to be explained by a single theory. Other theories suggest differently and; therefore, have varying explanations. This paper examines the Psychological, Biochemical, and Social Process theories to slightly explain Jeffrey Dahmer’s actions.
Biological theory is the concept that focuses on certain biological characteristics that are thought to be associated with an increased risk of engaging in criminal or deviant behavior (Bernard, Snipes & Gerould, 2010). Early biological theories tended to focus on the physical appearance as a distinguishing trait of criminals, whereas modern theories primarily argue that biology is one of many factors that contribute toward criminal behavior (Bernard, Snipes & Gerould, 2010). Early rape theorist included that of Johan Lavater, Fran’s...
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).
...& Snipes, J. (2010). Biological Factors and Criminal Behavior.Vold's theoretical criminology (6th Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
1. Cesare Lombroso applied the methods of natural science (observation, measurement, experimentation, statistical analysis) to the study of criminal behavior. Lombroso rejected the classical theory of crime, associated with Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, which explained criminal activity as freely chosen behavior based on the rational calculation of benefit and loss, pleasure and pain. Critically analyze both schools of thought and provide an opinion as to what theory you believe is more relevant.
There has always been a fascination with trying to determine what causes an individual to become a criminal? Of course a large part of that fascination has to do with the want to reduce crime, and to determine if there is a way to detect and prevent individuals from committing crime. Determining what causes criminality is still not perfectly clear and likewise, there is still debate as to whether crime is caused biologically, environmentally, or socially. Furthermore, the debate is directly correlated to the notion of 'nurture vs nature'. Over time many researchers have presented various theories pertaining to what causes criminal behavior. There are many theories that either support or oppose the concept of crime being biological rather than a learned behavior.
In conclusion it is shown through examinations of a average criminals biological makeup is often antagonized by a unsuitable environment can lead a person to crime. Often a criminal posses biological traits that are fertile soil for criminal behavior. Some peoples bodies react irrationally to a abnormal diet, and some people are born with criminal traits. But this alone does not explain their motivation for criminal behavior. It is the environment in which these people live in that release the potential form criminal behavior and make it a reality. There are many environmental factors that lead to a person committing a crime ranging from haw they were raised, what kind of role models they followed, to having a suitable victims almost asking to be victimized. The best way to solve criminal behavior is to find the source of the problem but this is a very complex issue and the cause of a act of crime cannot be put on one source.
Biological theories are based on the idea that juvenile criminal activity is not something they decide, but rather something in a child’s genes. Palmerin (2012) states that Cesar Lombroso is credited for creating the major biological theory called Positivism. His theory states that individuals whom grow up committing crimes have inherited biochemical and genetic factors (as cited in Champion, 2004). Furthermore, he states that criminals tend to have certain physical features that are considered a predisposition to commit crimes, such as sloping foreheads or large earlobes (Champion, 2004).
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.