Many researchers have tried to address the issue of crime, and more specifically criminal behavior. One factor, which causes much debate, is whether body type directly affects criminal behavior. Is it possible to determine who will be a criminal simply by examination of a person’s body type? Researchers like William Sheldon, Sean Maddan, Jeffrey T. Wlaker, and J. Mitchell Miller believe that there is a link between criminality and body type. Others like Chris L. Gibson and Kevin M. Beaver believe otherwise. They support the notion that both biological and social factors cause criminal behavior. Furthermore, they disagree with research that attributes criminal behavior as a product of certain body types. Gibson and Beaver only viewed the factor of body type as a predisposition that gets triggered by the environment (Kelly, 2010, Lecture Unit 1). There are contemporary researchers, like Madden, Walker and Miller, whom are trying to validate the direct relation between body type and criminal behavior. Of course, this debate pertaining to body type stems from earlier research.
The research done about not only physical traits but sociological ones are all involved with the positivism perspective. This method “relies on the scientific method, quantifying and measuring behavior and social conditions associated with behavior” (Conklin, 2007). Cesare Lombroso became a huge influence of the positivist approach. He studied the skulls of criminal’s, which led him to develop his theory of atavisms, or what he called “people out of time” (Conklin, 2007, P. 106). This theory suggested that there are individuals that are biologically more primitive than other humans. Furthermore, suggested that there was the possibility of people r...
... middle of paper ...
...nents will make researching a bit more complicated, in the long run it will address many of the factors that need to be reviewed. Other components need to be used to truly determine if body type does identify criminal behavior more directly. Ultimately, it is as Gibson and Beaver suggested studies have yet to meet standards that would address many of the important factors that could be attributed to criminal behavior.
References
Conklin, J.E., Criminology, 10th edition, Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. 2007.
Hickey, T.J., Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Crime and Criminology, 9th Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2010
Kelly, C.T., Unit 1: Lecture, University of Everest Online, 12 July 2010.
Thompson, W. E. and Bynum J. E. (2010). Juvenile Delinquency: A sociological Approach Eighth Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Finding strong evidence surrounding this topic could be significant to reducing crime rates and addressing the public health issue. What I have learn from research-based evidence and analyzing social and cultural theories, is that criminal behavior is multifaceted and is influenced by a range of determinants in which surrounds the nature versus nurture debate. I believe that nature and nurture both play significant roles to the making of a criminal.
Hickey, T. J. (2010). Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Crime and Criminology, 9th Edition. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
The first subcategory is called the “Biochemical factor”, which is believed by some criminologists that there is a direct link between crime and anti-social behavior caused by environmental factors that affect a person’s internal biochemistry. (Siegel & Worrall, 2013, pg. 45)
Purposes: This study intends to use the perspective of three criminal theories: Social disorganization, Differential association and labeling theory to understand and eventually address the issues surrounding education, socioeconomic status and social dilemmas in respect to incarceration amongst juveniles. Specifically, the study intends to answer the following research questions: Does education, socioeconomic status and social dilemmas affect incarceration among Juveniles in America? How can education, socioeconomic status and social problems decrease the rate of incarceration among Juveniles in America? What are some environmental factors that predetermine criminal outcome amongst juveniles? Many questions, theories and researcher are generated in order to tackle an issue of this magnitude. The raw data that one uses to conceptualize may prevent a strong conviction when presenting this type of data amongst a broad spectrum. The intentions of ones study should solely focus on the prevention process rather than just presenting factual material to its audience. Stereotypes, pigeonholes and over-generalizations should be address. Misrepresentation amongst the minority group tends to produce a more compelling statistic. "Adult offenders often begin their criminal careers as children with little hope and little help" (Comey, 2005, p. 12) This research will try and find pre-indicators that will help solve the juvenile delinquency rate.
Daly, Kathleen, Goldsmith, Andrew, and Israel, Mark. 2006, Crime and Justice: A guide to criminology, third addition, Thomson, Lawbook Co.
Cesare Lombroso was an Italian criminologist who founded the Italian Positivist School of Criminology. Lombroso is famous for rejecting the Classical School of Criminology, which believed people have the free will in making decisions while committing crime and that the punishment must be swift and certain to deter people from crime. Lombroso Italian Positivist School considered phrenology and physiognomy had many influences on who would be a criminal, another popular term is the “atavistic born criminal” which states that criminality is inherited and that someone is a born criminal. In this paper I present Lombroso work and how his theories could identify a criminal by their outer physical traits. These early ideas and beliefs indicated that biology had a major influence on who would be a born criminal in society.
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...
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.
It is a fact that criminals have a smaller brains than law abiding citizens. Often, offenders share particular physical traits such as, being young males, muscular, having lower than average IQ, and a impulsive personality. Serial offenders are usually hyperactive and difficult children If a person has a low IQ, it is proven to be directly related to their tendency to be commit impulse actions that provide an immediate payoff. For instance, a rape or a mugging would provide a criminal with an immediate payoff. It is proven that crime often runs in families. In fact, chronic criminals are proven to be three times more likely to have criminal children. However, despite this information, scientists have no basis to come to any conclusions with this data. Therefore, one must consider other possible factors that may create a criminal mind, to come to a reasonable decision as to how one is developed.
Bartol, A. M., & Bartol, C. R. (2011). Criminal behavior: A psychological approach (9th ed).
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].
Criminality constitutes strategic mannerisms characterized by apathy to misery inflicted on others, egocentricity and depressed self-control. Habitual criminal behaviour seeks to satisfy the offender’s desires for material prestige, power or pleasurable feelings regardless to damage inflicted to victim or society. Such behaviors extend mistrust, fuel prejudice, and largely corrupt social cohesion. Biological, psychological and environmental attributes are thought to heavily influence antisocial and criminal behaviour. Numerous studies have proven that active emulation, genetic predispositions and psychosocial labeling are all complementary to development and expressions of criminal behaviour. There has historically been a myriad of theories that attempt to explain criminal behaviour through different perspectives, all which constitute intricate paradigms that play a role in expressio...
Studies have shown in the past, that some of the main underlying factors that contribute to juvenile delinquency are differential association, peer pressure, socialization, age, mental health and drug/substance abuse. All these independent variables in some way can said to either directly or indirectly influence criminal behavior in juveniles. Other factors like demographics, race, and violent / nonviolent crimes are also taken in consideration at a smaller level. In many of the studies one would think that race would be a main variable but most research has chosen to only consider it as a factor and not as a main variable. When looking at Criminal Juveniles most studies define a juvenile who has committed any crime punishable by the Criminal justice system. Delinquent behavior is also included in most studies, behavior that is outside of the norms of society.
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.
Juvenile delinquency is one of the major social issues in the United States today. Juvenile delinquency, also known as juvenile offending, is when “a violation of the law committed by a juvenile and not punishable by death or life imprisonment” (Merriam-webster.com). Although we have one justice system in America, the juvenile system differs from the adult juvenile system. Most juvenile delinquents range from as low as the age of seven to the age of seventeen. Once the delinquent or anyone turns the age of eighteen, they are considered an adult. Therefore, they are tried as an adult, in the justice system. There are many different reasons why a child would commit crime, such as mental and physical factors, home conditions, neighborhood environment and school conditions. In addition, there are a variety of effects that juvenile justice systems can either bad effects or good effects. Finally there are many different solutions that can reduce juvenile delinquency. As a result, juvenile delinquency is a major issue and the likeliness of it can be reduced. In order to reduce juvenile delinquency there has to be an understanding of the causes and the effects.