More handpicked essays just for you.
The relevance of biological theory in understanding crime or criminal behaviour
The relevance of biological theory in understanding crime or criminal behaviour
The relevance of biological theory in understanding crime or criminal behaviour
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Lombroso’s biological theory of crime:
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...
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”...
People are uniquely different and because of this reason, they do have different behaviors. Crime is one kind of behavior that an individual can engage in. They are punishable by the law and may be prosecuted by the state (Helfgott, 2008). There are different theories existing that try to explain the actions of criminals. They deeply explain what causes an individual to commit a criminal activity. This paper discusses some examples of the biological theories, social theories and psychological theories of crime.
This paper looks at the different theories of criminal behavior that explain why people commit crimes. It goes deeper to analyze the specific theories in a bid to determine why a person may commit a certain crime and another person under the same circumstances may not. The paper focuses on key factors that motivate unruly behavior among people and why such factors are present in some people and not in others. In doing so, the paper leans more on children in order to determine how delinquency behavior is progressively imparted on them as they undergo developmental trajectory.
Look around and you’re guarenteed to see some type of crime. Whether it’s as simple as someone speeding or as severe as a shooting its happeneing and its nonstop. However the question that might never be solved is why does it happen and what drives people to do what we have been told our whole lives is wrong. During this semster we have learned the different types of theories as to why crime occurs. Growing up I always felt strongly that people chose to do bad and too this day I stand by this belief. Because of this I see no other theory to write about than the Rational Choice Theory. The idea of rational choice theory is that before the crime takes place the criminal thinks through what they 're going to do and that they are fully aware they 're committing the crime. And more than just thinking about doing the crime theres also a mix of emotions
In the news today there is an article about a high-school boy who brought guns to school and shot several students. The parents of the victims are suing various computer game companies saying that the violent games present shooting and killing people as pleasurable and fail to portray realistic consequences. A representative of one of the companies released a statement saying that this is another example of individuals seeking to elude responsibility that has become so common in our society. This case is not about software. What is on trial is the age-old debate between nature and nurture, which also lies at the center of Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment.
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.
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,
...& 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.
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.
The first theory to be explored is the hereditary theory, which stems from Cesare Lombroso (1876) father of criminology, (Feldman, 1993) whose studies were carried out by morphology. Lombroso tried to show a relationship between criminal behaviour and physical characteristics. Lombrosco suggested that an individual was predisposed to becoming a criminal, as a result of internal or innate characteristics, rather than environmental factors.
After Comte and Darwin developed their theories about the world, they were followed by several criminologists who also believed that science could answer many of the problems that were present in society, particularly in the field of criminology. One of these men was Cesare Lombroso, who was the first to actually focus on criminology as a science (Adler et al 2012). Lombroso believed criminals could be identified because of physical differences between them and non-criminal members of society (Adler et al 2012). In order to recognize these people he created what he called the "atavistic stigmata" which are characteristics exhibited by humans who were less developed (Adler et al 2012:66). Individuals who exhi...
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.