Biological Explanations Of Crime Analysis

(M1)-The perception that crime has become one of the most serious problems facing society has led to determined efforts by many researchers to find the causes of criminal behavior. Researchers have focused on biological causes, believing that a biological basis of criminality exists and that an understanding of the biology will be useful in predicting which people are predisposed to become criminals. Judging the case of Jonathan Tregar, we can use the Lombroso theory to determine his case accordingly. This theory assumes that criminal behavior is inborn, associated with physical body features, and that criminals have body features which are different from non-criminals. Among the many

Biological factors alone are not a sufficient reason why crime occurs. An example would be looking at testosterone and adult deviance. Most studies have shown no correlation with circulating testosterone and behavior. However, there is significance to examining biological factors. The answer lies in the fact that biological explanations of crime understate the important role of social conditions. (Conklin, p 93). When looking at biological and social combined, there is a moderately strong relationship between testosterone and social integration while growing up. Social integration can be fragmented due to less social opportunities by being in lower-class status, unmarried, and an unstable work history. (Conklin, p 96).

What causes people to commit crime? This million dollar questions has place many criminologists and researchers searching for answers. In the past decades, people have tried to explain crime by referring to the earliest literature of criminal’s atavistic features to human biology. Recent studies have shows that crime is described in the social environment. While, no one theory can prove the causes of crime, strain theory has gain support in academic research for its five mode of adaptation.

According to Lombroso his theories were sparked by an autopsy of a criminal in an insane asylum. He discovered an abnormality that he deemed to be common with lower animals. Lombroso is quoted as saying, “At the sight of that skull, I seemed to see all of a sudden (…) the problem of the nature of the criminal – an atavistic being who reproduces in his person the ferocious instincts of primitive humanity and the inferior animals.” By modern standards Lombroso’s sweeping generalizations would be regarded as crude at best. However, Lombroso did indicate many symptoms of mental illness as possible indicators of “born criminality.” The epileptic and the insane were a subset within Lombroso’s “born criminal.” Many of his assertions on the attributes of criminals were wildly off base, however he did bring a focus onto the biological and away from the soul as the reason for deviance. His assumptions spread far and wide throughout the nineteenth century; for example during a trial in Ohio a housekeeper’s head was measured to see whether or not she should be charged with the poisoning of a young boy. Lombroso himself performed thousands of autopsies and examined many a brain. His theories inspired a craze for dissection and understanding of the brain.

No one can be certain whether nature or nurture is the cause for criminal behavior. However, research has stated that it is more often an interaction between genes and the environment that predicts criminal behavior (Jones, 2005). Through a biological perspective, it is determined that criminal behavior is due to genetics and/or neurological conducts. It concludes that criminals are born due to their criminal traits being passed down through genetic or chromosomal mutation. Another explanation of criminal behavior within the biological perspective are the neurochemicals within our brains and body. There many regulated chemicals in the brain that determines thought process, perception and action. Like the arguments for genetic and chromosomal mutation, any abnormal anomalies or chemical imbalance can heavily impact behavior (Schram, 2018). This goes for any damages to some parts of the brain that controls emotions, reason and logic. Problems with the biological perspective are the following: 1. It provide little explanations for a small of minority of offenders with specific conditions (Levitt, 2013). 2. Disregard the effect of environmental influences and life experiences that also impact behavior. 3. Since criminality is based on biology, it is unchangeable, therefore, no one is to be blamed for their actions. Lastly, 4. Famous studies on biological factors of criminality (ex: the twin, family and adoption studies) maintained an intertwined relationship with social

Trait theories posit that crime is caused by certain traits, biological or psychological, among individuals which predispose them to crime. These traits control the individual's coping strategies and ultimately result in criminal behavior. Social philosopher Cesare Lombroso, working in the early 1900's, theorized that there were common physical traits shared by criminals. (Glaser, 205-6). These included distinct characteristics in the jaw line, teeth, and nose as cranium of offenders. As a result, public law enforcement viewed offenders as either incapable of reason or as unable to control their animal impulses. (Glaser, 206).

A new paradigm, positivism, is present by the criminologists to understand the crime and the behaviour of criminals, in which they are trying to explain biological and psychological effects on crimes. The essential and primary thought behind biological positivist criminology is that criminals are born criminals and not made to be by someone else, due the transfer of genes from parents to the child; individuals turn to become criminals by their nature, not nurture. Cesare Lombroso, an Italian physician and physiatrists concentrated on bodies of executed offenders with an end goal to decide deductively whether lawbreakers were physically any unique in relation to non-hoodlums. In 1876, Lombroso distributed studies and illustrations from his classic study ‘The Criminal Man’ specifying that born criminals may have abnormality in their genes which will make them have related facial features such as large jaws, high cheekbones, large canine teeth and sloping foreheads; his work focused on biological factors of criminals.

The biological theories are essential to the criminal justice profession so that they won't assume that a person's genetic characteristics cause a person to commit a crime. However, there are born criminals and “these types of criminals are the most dangerous, and can be identified through his or her stigmata or identifying characteristics” (Akers, Sellers, See, & Kieser, 2013, p. 10). Biological theories are the bases for severe criminal behavior mostly found among people who are born with an innate impulse to commit a

First, psychological theory suggests that a person’s environment and past can influence their ability and desire to commit crime while biological theory suggest a person’s DNA makeup could influence their ability to commit crime. “Biological theories within the field of criminology attempt to explain behaviors contrary to societal expectations through examination of

Lombrosco’s research was later discredited due to lack of evidence. Some of the samples (incarcerated criminals) included individuals with severe learning difficulties thus explaining facial abnormalities and those who grew up in poverty resulting in malnutrition. Furthermore this biological determinist approach allows no consideration to social influence.

However, while the overstimulation of the Id and the failure to acquire and develop the the Ego and SuperEgo leads to criminal tendencies, while aggression may be out of adaptive values, and while genetic studies have pointed towards the influence of genes and criminal behaviour, these theories alone are insufficient to account for crime. Evolutionary theory does not explain or predict for the extreme degrees of aggression in individuals nor has the genetic theory proven for 100% heritability; which raises the need for us to examine the Nurture camp of crime theories as well.

88-89). The conclusion that Lombroso came up with was that there is a "born criminal type" (Thompson and Bynum, 2010, P. 89). This concept of physical characteristics was used in other fields, like Anthropology to see if people of a certain race were more primitive then others. It is not all that surprising that it was used to try and establish if criminals could be distinguished in the same manner. The concept of individuals being born as a criminal type is still unclear. Of course this concept has been expanded well beyond just looking at physical traits.

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

Criminals are born not made is the discussion of this essay, it will explore the theories that attempt to explain criminal behavior. Psychologists have come up with various theories and reasons as to why individuals commit crimes. 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 behavior, these include: genetic theory, hereditary theory,.

As the act of criminality is a global phenomenon, there must therefore be some explanation as to why this is; some schools of thought strive to explicate this by means of genetics, whilst others take a more socially influenced approach. Although at the time, the micro-criminological theories of Lombroso and Sheldon may have appeared credible, modern research has attempted to refute such notions. In an epidemiological context, the act of crime is seen by some as a positive contribution to society, as noted by Durkheim (Kirby et al, 2000), although too much will lead to social instability, or anomie. In contrariety to Durkheim's beliefs, a Marxist perspective would consider the mere notion of capitalism as criminal; thus deeming the vast