There are two biological theories suggested as explanations of violent crime in this article, they are as follow:
1) Hormones – This theory suggests that androgens, namely testosterone “[increase] the probability of aggressive and acquisitive criminal behaviour” (Ellis 2005). Witnesses interviewed suggest hormones as being the cause of crime, that offenders are “fuelled up with testosterone” and that nothing can be done to avoid violent outbursts (Munro 2014). Adrian Raine (2002) suggests that there is “evidence of a causal relationship” between heightened levels of testosterone and aggression in both animal studies and human offenders.
2) Atavism – Cesare Lombroso’s original theories of crime suggested that criminals held atavistic characteristics. This view of violent crime as primitive behaviour is still present 140 years later, as evident in this article. For example, one witness statement describes offender behaviour as being “like our close primate cousins” (Munro 2014). In alignment with Lombroso’s theory,
…show more content…
Identify at least 2 strengths and 2 limitations of this article.
The article suggests multiple causes for the crime of focus, these include: Intoxication, the underdeveloped male brain, and elevated levels of testosterone, amongst other social factors. However, for causality to be ‘proven’ it must be found that (in the example of intoxication) alcohol consumption will lead to violent behaviour in anyone. Even the article neglects this as truth, instead it provides an association between the various factors mentioned as causing a one-punch attack.
Strengths
• It provides an expert social explanation, in that “changing representations of masculinity” have created a violent sub-culture (Munro 2014).
• Suggests that “violence doesn’t discriminate”, inferring that the causal factor of alcohol effects well educated people who should know better (Munro 2014).
The nurturing of individuals plays a role in the making of killers, as 94% of serial killers had experienced some form of abuse as children and 42% have suffered severe physical abuse (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2010). A child abuse is a determining factor, in which supports the idea that serial killers and psychopath, are influenced significantly by nurture (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2011). In most cases social, cultural and physiological determinants all play a role in influencing serial killers to grow into a mass murderer. It is important that physiological and social determinants can be identified, so they could be altered for the purpose of preventing the number of crime.
Crime causation began to be a focus of study in the rapidly developing biological and behavioral sciences during the 19th century. Early biological theories proposed that criminal behavior is rooted in biology and based on inherited traits. Cesare Lombroso (1836-1909), an Italian army prison physician, coined the term “atavism” to describe “the nature of the criminal”...
The documentary Tough Guise reveals that the cause of violence traces back to cultural codes on masculinity and societal expectations rooted from such codes. Prior to watching the documentary, it was difficult to understand how culture played a part in men’s violence—it was thought to be more of a natural phenomenon linked to men’s biological traits. The documentary, however, disproves this: men’s violence in America is “made” by the society, not “given”, and thus cultural implications should be explored to understand where the violence really comes from.
The documentary Tough Guise reveals that the cause of violence traces back to cultural codes on masculinity and societal expectations rooted from such codes. Prior to watching the documentary, it was difficult to understand how culture played a part in men’s violence—it was thought to be more of a natural phenomenon linked to men’s biological traits. The documentary, however, disproves this: men’s violence in America is “made” by the society, not naturally “given”, and thus cultural implications should be explored to understand where the violence really comes from.
Biological positivism is the theory that there is something biologically inferior about criminals that makes them predisposed to criminality (Vold, et all, 2010). Throughout its history, biological positivism has focused on different aspects of a human’s biology. Its creator, Cesare Lombroso, described criminals as “throwbacks” to primitive peoples in terms of human evolution. He theorized that criminals were physically different than non-criminals. While he described these differences as differences in facial structure, Lombroso’s idea later developed into modern biological positivism that focused on genetics, brain functions, and brain development. This modern view of biological positivism is one of the theories that best describe a primary child psychopath’s development into an adu...
The most vivid example of the biological determinism is the theory of Cesare Lombroso. Lombroso based his theory on the assumption that criminals have certain physiognomic features or abnormalities. Lombroso wanted to be able to detect future criminals in order to isolate them from the society. This gave criminology a strong push to create new methods of dealing with criminals and prevent crimes. Lombroso implied that prisoners had common facial characteristics. If to exaggerate criminals in Lombroso’s theory can be identified through the shape of their skulls, asymmetry of the face and head, large cheekbones, ears and lips, long arms and a twisted nose. Lombroso’s theory is the oldest one and it can without a doubt be called the main background data for the whole process of the development of criminology. Lombroso stated that men are more inclined to commit crimes due to the conservatism and the narrow-mindedness of their interests. According to Lombroso women have less social contacts and this is what predetermines their conservatism. Thi...
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.
Nature vs. nurture has been one of the oldest and most debated topics among psychologists over the years. This concept discusses whether a child is born into this world with their developmental work cut out for them or if a child is a “blank slate” and their experiences are what shape them into who they are. Over the years and plenty of research, psychologists have all mostly come to agree that it’s a little bit of both. Children are both born with some genetic predispositions while other aspects of the child’s development are strongly influenced by their surrounding environment. This plays into the criminal justice system when discussing where criminal behavior stems from. Is a criminal’s anti-social behavior just part of their DNA or is it a result of their upbringing? The answer to this question is not definite. Looking at research a strong argument can be made that criminals developed their anti-social patterns through the atmosphere in which they were raise, not their DNA.
4. Dodge, Kenneth A., John E. Bates, and Gregory S. Pettit. 1990. “Mechanisms in the Cycle of Violence.” Science 250: 1678–83.
...& 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.
...s violence goes, there are many factors such as sexual assault, intimate partner violence, violent crime, male rape, gangs and prisons.
In today’s society, one will find that there are many different factors that go into the development of a criminal mind, and it is impossible to single out one particular cause of criminal behavior. Criminal behavior often stems from both biological and environmental factors. In many cases criminals share similar physical traits which the general population do not usually have. For example criminals have smaller brains than properly adjusted individuals. However biological reasons cannot solely be the cause of criminal behavior. Therefore, one must look to other sources as to how a criminal mind is developed. Social and environmental factors also are at fault for developing a person to the point at which they are lead to committing a criminal act. Often, someone who has committed a violent crime shows evidence of a poorly developed childhood, or the unsuitable current conditions in which the subject lives. In addition if one studies victimology which is the role that the victim plays in the crime, it is apparent that there are many different causes for criminal behavior. Through the examination of biological factors, in addition to the social and environmental factors which make up a criminal mind, one can conclude that a criminal often is born with traits common to those of criminals, it is the environment that exist around them that brings out the criminal within them to commit indecent acts of crime.
Advances in technology began the interest in the possibility of crime being related to genetics. As technology continues to thrive, the stronger the argument becomes that criminal behavior is caused by genetic make-up. In a Wall Street Journal article of April 27, 2013 Stanton Samenow states, “Brain-imaging techniques are identifying physical deformations and functional abnormalities that predispose some individuals to violence.” The article hails the rising field of “neurocriminology” as revolutionizing our understanding of violent behavior. Neorocriminology and biocriminology go hand-in-hand, both involving studying the physical and mental elements in crime an...
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.