Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Biological Theory Of Crime
The Biological Theory Of Crime
The Biological Theory Of Crime
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The Biological Theory Of Crime
Positive philosophy emerged during a time of tremendous social change. The American and French revolutions, the consolidation of a powerful middle class, and the dawn of the Industrial Revolution all marked these social changes. Among the founders of the positivist school of thought and, according to some, the first modern sociologist was Claude Henri de Rouvroy, the Comte de Saint-Simon. Positivists focus on cause-and-effect relationships. Causation is established when three to five conditions are met: (1) the presumed cause precedes the presumed effect in time, (2) the presumed cause and the presumed effect are empirically correlated with one another, and (3) the observed empirical correlation between the presumed cause and the presumed effect is not spurious, that is, the empirical relationship cannot be explained away as being due to the influence of some other factor or factors. A second difference is that positivists assume that criminals are fundamentally different from noncriminal, either biologically, psychologically, sociologically, or in some combination with all three. Positivists search for such differences through scientific inquiry. When differences are found classifications or categories, such as criminals and noncriminal, are created. Third, positivists assume that social scientists, including criminologists, can be objective or value-neutral in their work. Fourth, positivists frequently assume that crime is caused by multiple factors, such as hormone imbalances, below-normal intelligence, inadequate socialization or self-control, and economic inequality. Fifth, positivists believe that society is based primarily on a consensus about moral values but not on a social contract, as classical theorist believed.
The claim recently has been made that “the scientific study of crime actually began with biological theories, in the late 18th century,” and that, “until the early 20th century, biological theories and criminology were virtually synonymous.” Biological theories of crime causation are based on the belief that criminals are physiologically different from noncriminal. Early biological theories assumed that structure determines function. In other words, criminals behave differently because structurally they are different. The cause of crime was biological inferiority. Biological inferiority in criminals was assumed to produce certain physical or genetic characteristics that distinguished criminals from noncriminal. It is important to emphasize that the physical or genetic characteristics themselves did not cause crime; they were only the symptoms, or stigmata, of the more fundamental inferiority.
-Psychoanalytic theories of crime causation are associated with work of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and his followers. Freud did not theorize much about criminal behavior per se, but a theory of crime causation can be inferred from his more general theory of human behavior and its disorders.
Revolution is one word that summarizes complete change. To put the name of a country before the word revolution means complete change in that country's government. In some way, whether it be politically, economically, or socially, the government failed to appease the people. In France and Latin America they stopped at virtually nothing to gain their goal. Latin America literally bit the hand the fed them and France beheaded their own king. This was all done in the name of reformation and change because somehow their government severely let down their people.
While the French and the American revolutions share some similarities, they differ in most areas involving the revolution. Enlightenment ideas would help shape politics, economics, and religion in the revolutionary nations. Although both found the importance of individual rights, they took different paths in establishing and operating their respective governments. The economic standpoints of the French would be in contrary with the American economics which roughly associate with enlightenment thinkers such as Adam Smith. Religion would closely be associated with principles in the United States while the French sought to secularize their nation.
Analyzing the post-revolutionary governments of America and France will prove that the French Revolution was far more revolutionary than the American Revolution, due to the radical change that took place, the type of government implemented after, as well as the Napoleonic Code brought forth by Napoleon Bonaparte.
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”...
What is a revolution? By definition it means the overthrow of a government by those who are governed. That is exactly what the French and the Mexican revolutions were all about. The living conditions and overall treatment of the poor, pheasants, lower class, last man on the totem pole or what ever you want to call them, was a large factor in the coming of these revolutions. "Those who are governed" are exactly what the lower class people were. Also, liberty was one of the people's major concerns. They were ruled by men whose only desire was power and greed which is what led them into revolt.
French and Russian Revolutions Both the French and Russian revolutions occurred for two main reasons. Both of these revolutions were the direct result of bad leadership and a bad economy. These two reasons, along with other factors, caused both of these revolutions. Although they were both similar, they also had differences. A difference between the two is that the Russians had an unsuccessful "pre-revolution" in 1905.
The French Revolution evokes many different emotions and controversial issues in that some believe it was worth the cost and some don't. There is no doubt that the French Revolution did have major significance in history. Not only did the French gain their independence, but an industrial revolution also took place. One of the main issues of the Revolution was it's human costs. Two writers, the first, Peter Kropotkin who was a Russian prince, and the other Simon Schama, a history professor, both had very opposing views on whether the wars fought by France during the Revolution were worth it's human costs. Krapotkin believed that the French Revolution was the main turning point for not only France but for most other countries as well. On the other hand, Schama viewed the French Revolution as unproductive and excessively violent.
Revolutions are a prevalent part of world history and have shaped our world into what it is today. The French and the Bolshevik revolutions serve as just two examples of the many revolutions throughout history that have brought about changes to their respective countries. Both of these revolutions had distinct causes and were stimulated by other revolutions in the past. Since these two revolutions happened many years apart, with the French Revolution in the late sixteenth century and the Bolshevik Revolution in the early twentieth century, the ideologies behind them were somewhat different. The people went the extremes in both countries to bring about the desired changes. The revolutions were both radical because of the shortage of food and the uprising of the people. In both revolutions, there is a quest for change and the citizens were willing to go as far as they needed to go to make that change, even if it meant the people had to overthrow their leaders.
During the eighteenth century, France was one of the most richest and prosperous countries in Europe, but many of the peasants were not happy with the way France was being ruled. On July 14, 1789, peasants and soldiers stormed the Bastille and initiated the French Revolution. This essay will analyze the main causes of the French Revolution, specifically, the ineffectiveness of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, the dissatisfaction of the Third Estate, and the Enlightenment. It will also be argued that the most significant factor that caused the French Revolution is the ineffective leadership of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.
The American and the French revolutions had many similarities and differences. One similarity being is that they both wanted to escape the rule of their King. Second, they both started by an uprising of people against unfair taxation by the monarchy. The French peasants were not represented by the Parliament. It was mainly composed of middle and upper class people. Now, the American colonists were not represented in England because of their lack of presence. Both wanted to set up a Republic, which provided liberty and justice to all classes of citizens. Just like France, the American colonists were composed up mainly middle and lower class citizens. The American Revolution started out by not wanting bloodshed and violence. France started out with violence and bloodshed. (American Revolution)
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...
During the late 18th century, both France and the British colonies in America experienced wars the opened the eyes of nations. The French Revolution and American Revolution drastically changed political thinking. In the French Revolution, monarchism was abandoned and political power was given to the people until the country became out of control, and a military dictatorship was necessary to regain control of France. In the American Revolution, a new nation was formed as the British colonies tore themselves away from the English monarchy. In the end, both France and the new United States of America moved away from absolute rule by a king or queen and wanted to put the political power in the hands of their people. However, there are many differences as well as similarities along the way to their political reformation.
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,
These theories represent part of the classic psychological debate, nature versus nurture. Are individuals predisposed to becoming a criminal or are they made through their environment. 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. 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.
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.