Throughout criminal justice there are many theories to help make sense or give a more detailed outlook at possible causes for crime. One of those theories involve the biological theory of crime, which proposes that individual’s deviate from social norms largely because of their biological makeup. The theory primarily pertains to formal deviance, using biological reasons to explain criminality, though it can certainly extend to informal deviance. Biological theories are grounded in the concept of biological determination, the notion that the causes of crime are the result of some biological or physical element and that criminals may be “born” not made. Cesare Lombroso, an Italian doctor and often referred as the “father of modern criminology” was someone who associated most with this theory of crime. Cesare Lombroso took systematic observations and measurements of the …show more content…
There have been attempts to justify the biological theory of crime but have overall been structurally weak. One experiment was held by Richard Dugdale who traced 709 members of the Jukes family back to the year 1790 and found that twenty percent had been involved in criminal activity. He concludes this because of “bad” heredity and their biological transmission of feeblemindnedness resulted in degeneracy. I find this research to not be justified, reason is the percent is very low which makes me question the actual claim of crime being inherited, if that was the case I would expect the percentage to be higher over almost 100 years of background checks on the Jukes family. This research is also insulting to the family members who do not involve themselves in criminal activity, sharing DNA with a criminal does not make you a criminal as well, it would be especially insulting to judge someone by those claims in today’s political correctness society. Other researches have brought other claims and solution to the
Nature versus nurture has been argued in attempt to understand how criminals behave. The theory of what influences psychopath and serial killers’ violent and destructive pathways has not been agreed on till this day. Criminals such as psychopaths and serial killers have been researched for the past two decades. Scientists have found that genetics is a determining factor of who becomes a serial killer. It is important to understand the determinants involved within a serial killer, because if these social and environmental causes are discovered, they can be altered and controlled to reduce crime (Lykken, 1993). With more studies, we would therefore prevent mass murders and could assist in significant reductions of crime within society.
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 first well known study of crime and criminals is that of one who is often referred to as the ‘father of criminology’, Cesar Lombroso. Lombroso’s argument was based around the Darwinian theory of human evolution and his theory argued that criminals were a throw back to an earlier period of human progression. In other words, they were less evolved humans, with visible physical features such as large ears and big lips. His theory suggested that criminals were born and not made therefore, where genetically prone to criminality. Merton’s argument was to the contrary.
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.
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...
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.
Cesare Lombroso, medical criminologist, headed the school. Enrico Ferri and Raffaele Garafolo were Lombroso’s disciples, both of whom also headed, as well as had their own opinions on the biological crime theory. Lombroso argued that “criminality was a biological trait found in some human beings” (Boundless, 2015, 1). Today, the biological theory emphasizes the relationship between genetics and crime. The biological theory of crime has evolved over the years in the sense that, initially, the theory was primarily based on physical features. In contrast, it is now primarily based on genetics. As technology has also evolved as well as our knowledge on genetics, this only makes sense (Boundless,
The foundation of our legal system rest upon the single philosophy that humans hold their own fate. Even though, we perceive in our daily lives the persistence of causation and effect. Even children understand the simplistic principle that every action will have a reaction. Despite this obvious knowledge, we as a society still implanted the belief that our actions are purely our own. Yet, with the comprehension of force that environmental factors impact our development, we continue to sentence people for crimes committed. Moreover, uncontrollable environmental influences are not the only deterministic factors we ignore in our societal view of crime. One’s biological composition can work against any moral motives that they
Trait theory views criminality as a product of abnormal biological or psychological traits. It is based on a mix between biological factors and environmental factors. Certain traits alone cannot determine criminality. We are born with certain traits and these traits along with certain environmental factors can cause criminality (Siegel, 2013). According to (Siegel, 2013), the study of sociobiology sparked interest in biological or genetic makeup as an explanation for crime and delinquency. The thought is that biological or genetic makeup controls human behavior, and if this is true, then it should also be responsible for determining whether a person chooses crime or conventional behavior. This theory is referred to as trait theory (Siegel, 2013). According to Siegel (2013), due to the fact that offenders are different, one cannot pinpoint causality to crime to just a single biological or psychological attribute. Trait theorist looks at personal traits like intelligence, personality, and chemical and genetic makeup; and environmental factors, such as family life, educational attainment, economic factors, and neighborhood conditions (Siegel, 2013). There are the Biosocial Trait theories an...
The biological approach does not explain all people, what about the people with these characteristics that do not resort to crime, or what about other people who commit crimes who do not possess any of these characteristics. I believe like many criminologists Lombroso was looking for a solution to solve criminal behavior and came up with the theory of physical traits linked to criminal behaviors based on some similarities with no real way to test the theory. I think there are many different reasons why people commit crime, such as opportunity, mental illness, family influence, low economic standing and drug dependence. Theories based on these characteristics in my opinion better describe why people resort to criminal behavior over having certain physical
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.
Criminologists and sociologist have long been in debate for century's to explain criminal behaviour. The two main paradigms of thought are between 'nature' and 'nurture'. Nature is in reference to a learnt behaviour where a multitude of characteristics, in society influence whether a person becomes deviant such as poverty, physical abuse or neglect. Nurture defines biological features which could inevitability lead to a individuals deviant or criminal behaviour, because criminality is believed by biological positivist to be inherited from a persons parents. However, I believe that criminal behaviour is a mixture of characteristics that lead to deviant acts such as psychological illness & Environmental factors. Therefore, this essay will aim to analyse both biological positivist and psychological positivist perspectives in hope of showing to what extent they play a role in criminal behaviour. Firstly, the essay will look at Cesare Lombroso's research on physical features and how these ideas have moved on to then develop scientific ideas such as genetics to explain criminal behaviour. Secondly, the essay will focus on external factors which may be able to explain criminal behaviour such as the social influences, life chances and Material deprivation.
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.
TANNENBAUN, B, (2007),Profs link criminal behaviour to genetics [online] , Available at: http://thedp.com/index.php/article/2007/11/profs_link_criminal_behavior_to_genetics [accessed 16th October 2011].
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.