Biological Hypotheses Of Wrongdoing And Criminal Behavior

The studies of biological behaviors have shown that criminals with a passion for their crime tend to have a genetic or physiological issue that plays a major part in their criminal activities. Gary Ridgway and John Hinckley Jr. portrayed significant degrees of physiological issues that may have contributed to the crimes they committed. Lack of education, moral support, love, and self-accomplishments may have also provided behaviors out of the norm. Criminal activities in any setting lead to the perpetrator acquiring feelings of self-gratification. Though studies are continuously, biological factors play major roles in the physiological outcomes for criminals.

Crime theories are still in a development stage; it is an evolutionary process that continues to this day. Crime is still a complex and misunderstood phenomenon with no concrete evidence when it comes to human behavior. Throughout time there have been endless amounts of crime theories, few of which revolve around biological explanations. We have Cesare Lombroso and the Positive School who thought that criminals were genetically different from the rest of the general population, that they were biologically aggressive, had criminal traits and/or born as criminals. There is also William Sheldon’s theory of body types, called the somatotype theory, that argued the mesomorph body type to be the most prone to commit crime or deviant behavior.

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).

This paper states how criminals were either born, mentally ill and/or intoxicated, or had some social force that pushes an individual into a crime becoming a criminal. The degree to criminal behavior could be one or more reasons. Additionally, the knowledge of the biological theory is to highlight its value on a complicated issue that demands attention to detail and a minded method that is willing to account for criminal behavior at all

Biological and psychological perspectives seek to explain the underlying cause of criminal behavior through the means of individual genetic and mental ailments. However, these views are different from sociological aspects in that sociological theories focus on environmental factors found among groups and do not account for genetic and personality traits of those who have come from both good and bad situations. Therefore, psychologist and biologist try to account for influences of a genetic and mental nature in connection with the one’s social environment.

Biological criminology began many years ago along with the scientist Cesare Lombroso. He believed that criminals are born, not made. A “born criminal”, is a “defective individual”, whom has natural or instinctive tendencies towards low types of social life. (Biosocial and Psychological Theories, Feb. 11, 2014) Biological criminology believes criminals are genetically determined but face major shortcomings for being “simplistic, untestable, illogical, and often ideological” (Biosocial and Psychological Theories, Feb. 11, 2014). By the 1950’s, biological theories had almost been wiped out because of the lack of support. Today we see some form of biological criminology intertwined with sociological theory. We see the interaction of biological and environmental variables playing a role in a person’s behavior. The original nature argument of biological criminology was rewritten as not nature versus nurture, but as “nature via nurture”. (Biosocial and Psychological Theories, Feb. 11, 2014)

The principles of the biological theories allow us the understanding that all biological theories should evaluate common factors that relate to each other from one biological theory to the other (Schmalleger, 2012). The first parts of the biological theory assess the importance for the theories to make a connection between criminal behavior and the human brain and a person’s personality and the studies of neurology and neurochemistry. This meaning that a person’s ability to control antisocial behavior stems from their environment and the and family genes gives the person directly into right and wrong. There is also a standard that should evaluate the connection between different groups such a sex and racial makeup that that of criminal behavior as well as human instinctive behavior (Dretske, 2014). The link between the evolutionary development of a person criminal behavior or ability to

3.2 Testability While several earlier criminological theories have been untestable, most contemporary criminological theories are testable as we can deduce measurable factors to support or falsify them. I will now look at the testability of different theories of crime. 3.2.1 Biological Theories of Crime Modern biological theories are testable because they identify specific physical traits such as genes and hormone levels we can compare with crime rates to draw correlations. For example, criminologists have used twin and adoption studies to test Mednick’s Theory of Inherited Criminal Tendencies by examining genetic influences on crime (Raine, 2002).

In today’s society, there is a surprising amount of criminal research done by sociologists but most of our explanations can be better explained by biological and psychological approaches. Why does crime exist in all cultures? No matter where you go or visit you can be sure that there is crime occurring. Its important to remember that there are quite a few explanations for the causation of crime, but I will do my best to include them all. Let’s begin by examining the biological explanations of crime.

However, these theories had negative policy implications through a eugenics movement which encouraged the sterilization of criminals, voluntary or not, euthanasia (Rose, 2000), chemical castration, and preventative incapacitation (Simon, 2006), to name a few. While this might be a dark part of history in criminology it’s important it’s addressed because biosocial grew out of this dark past once science began to advance and once the notions of eugenics and determinism were no longer found in criminology (Gibson & Rafter, 2006). Through twin studies and DNA testing, scientists have found that there is a link between genetics and criminality but that those genetics and biochemical imbalances do not determine an assured life of crime just because you have a father that is in the criminal justice system (Mednick et al., 1977). Rather, it’s a mix of biology and environment that can create a criminal or not.

In a criminology perceptive standpoint, criminologists disseminate their varied understandings of criminal behavior by the aspects of sociology, psychology, anthropology, and biological theories. Through the early philosophies of crime studies, the classical theory foist the belief of censurable punishment can deter people from committing criminal acts. The biological positivists believe that certain biological and mental traits present at birth can make people more contingent to crime. On the other hand, the sociological theorists believe that a person’s gauche social status within family, academia, and society are determinants of criminal behavior. The accurate lab results of psychology corroborate the explanation of criminal behavior by

Biosocial theories believe biological or genetic risk factors along with their environment impact an individual’s predisposition to engage in criminal behavior throughout their life. The biological risk factors tied with their environment can also impact an individual’s predilection to develop antisocial behavior or tendencies, violent or aggressive behavior, impulsivity, lack of social responsibility and their ability to learn complex behavior patterns. Several empirical studies regarding biosocial theory and its components will be reviewed within this paper followed by an explanation as to why a policy in policing and corrections with its basis in biosocial theory would not be effective.

goes into depth about how criminal behaviour is a result of multiple social factors, alongside the influence of genetics. This article gives details about how perception of this topic has evolved overtime from a biological standpoint, to social standpoint, and currently a combination of both. There is a sufficient amount of detail that explains how criminal behaviour and activity evolves throughout one’s childhood depending on hereditary factors, and events that take place while developing. This source is one that is very effective due to the efficient amount of facts, statistics, and research studies provided. It can also be inferred that this is unbiased because there are no opinions from the author herself, but rather she decided to detail the realistic elements of this recurring debate. With the use of data from famous psychologist Adriane Raine, and the many studies conducted worldwide, Jenni R. is able to provide reputable information that is more effective than sources that did not include such knowledge. This article will likely be the most useful due to the fact that it relates the most to the thesis. Not only will it provide proof for the biological and social aspect of this essay, but it will also give information to make connections between the two. Furthermore, the studies that are explained within the article will definitely be of good use when relating the arguments to real life examples. This in turn will further prove the thesis.

Over the years there has been the development of various concepts that are intended to clarify and comprehend criminal behavior in society. While some of these concepts are not as of now being used, most them have transformed and are utilized as a part of various criminal investigations in contemporary society (Haynie, and Osgood, 2005). The present criminologists mixed viewpoints that have been attracted from various controls to push their knowledge on criminal behavior. As a rule, the discourse on criminal behavior focuses on social and environmental variables with the social learning theory and the social structure theory being the greatest speculations that can clarify the commonness of crime in society. While these two components are the

Biological theories, like most other theories can be useful in the right context and when they are performed correctly. However, there are criticisms within this theory. Many years ago, the biological perspective of crime was viewed as taboo or unthinkable because of the assumption that the way you looked, phrenology, was linked to crime or that you were a natural born criminal (Wright, Miller, 1998). Phrenology is a strong argument to be criticized on due to it being dismissed as pseudoscience, meaning it claims to be scientific, but lacks evidence and conclusions to support the findings (Rafter, 2005). There could be useful information in the findings from the study of one’s cranium. There are issues such as the controls