Biological Theory Of Crime

What is crime? What makes people commit crimes and how can we stop it? These, and many other questions similar to these, are asked by criminologists everyday. Criminology is an ever growing field, mainly because there is more and more research occurring and new theories linking people and crime coming out everyday. Below the main field of criminology there are many subfields that have different theories and philosophies on what they believe link criminal behavior. Two of the main criminology perspectives are Classical Criminology and Positivist Criminology. Although these two are both studied in the criminology field, their views are distinctly contradictory from each other. These two theories and 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).

Each of these three contemporary sociological theories of crime are similar in that they focus mainly on crime in poor or disadvantaged areas. This focus is obvious with social conflict theory and social disorganization theory but not as much with rational choice theory although it is there. With rational choice theory the concept of what is to be gained

There are many perspectives in which one can analyze and understand why a person decides to commit a crime. Some perspectives are social learning theory, strain theory, classical and rational choice theory, deterrence theory, biological and psychological positivist theories, among others. However, for the purposes of this paper, the biological and psychological theories will be discussed.

The aim of this essay is to compare, contrast and evaluate two sociological theories of crime causation and two psychological theories of crime causation.

Theories of crime causation get to the fundamental characteristics of human nature. Theories of crime causation can be separated into trait theories and choice theories. Both types of theories make valid points about the causes of crime, yet they are have different implications for preventing the causes of crime. Thesis: Trait theories and choice theories both assume that humans are self-interested, but their conceptions of self-interest limit the applicability of each to certain types of crime. Trait theories appear more suited for explaining the causes of violent crime, whereas choice theories are more appropriate to property crimes or economic crimes.

Throughout the years, the association between a criminal offense and a criminal have become more relevant. Although there are many theories that try to illustrate the concept of why crimes happen, no theory has a profound influence of understanding an individual’s nature, relationship, development, and a society itself (Coleman & Ganong, 2014). To further explain, “theories of crime are defined in relation to modernity, spanning their development from the enlightenment to the present, with the advent of postmodernism” (Miller, 2012, p. 1798). In other words, theories of crime are an approach to understanding an individuals behaviour and actions in their environment, society, and themselves that may lead to crime. Nevertheless, within this paper, it will be comparing the case of

The second theory I would like to discuss is the Strain theory. The strain theory basically states that crime breeds in the gap, imbalance, or disjunction between culturally induced aspirations for economic success and structurally distributed possibilities of achievement. The theory assumes fairly uniform economic success aspirations across social class and the theory attempts to explain why crime is concentrated among the lower classes that have the least legitimate opportunities for achievement. It is the combination of the cultural emphasis and the social structure which produces intense pressure for

The causes of crime seem to be indefinite and ever changing. In the 19th century, slum poverty was blamed; in the 20th century, a childhood without love was blamed (Adams 152). In the era going into the new millennium, most experts and theorists have given up all hope in trying to pinpoint one single aspect that causes crime. Many experts believe some people are natural born criminals who are born with criminal mindsets, and this is unchangeable. However, criminals are not a product of heredity. They are a product of their environment and how they react to it. This may seem like a bogus assumption, but is undoubtedly true.

In contrast, there are a range of sociological theories that attempt to explain the cause of crime. One example of this is the ‘Structural Strain Theory’ developed by functionalist Robert Merton. This functionalist view states that societies are branded by both culture and social structure. Culture creates goals for people in society whilst social structure supplies (or fails to supply) the means for people to achieve those goals. In a well-integrated society people attempt to achieve these goals in an acceptable and appropriate way according to the explicit and implicit rules of that society. Therefore the goals and means in this society are balanced, however when an imbalance occurs, this is what causes deviant behaviour transpire. One paradigm that explains this theory is people who aspire to be economically successful (goal) will get a job to earn money (appropriate means of reaching that goal) and this type of person is called a conformist. However someone from a lower class who may not have the opportunity to receive a good education in order to get a job therefore they will surpass the acceptable means of reaching this goal. Therefore they are more likely to conduct deviant behaviour to reach this goal e.g. theft and this type of person is called an innovator according to Merton due to their acceptance of the cultural

Biological theories of crime look to the brain as the major determining factor of human behavior as it relates to crime. This is in direct contrast with the traditional thought of free will and external forces causing criminal activity and behavior. Genetics Criminologist have claimed to discovered a specific gene which is linked to criminal behavior. Researchers H. Hilger Ropers and geneticist Han Brunner collaborated on a study in the Netherlands, claiming men’s lack of two X chromosomes, makes them vulnerable to any defective gene. Their study further stated they were able to isolate the mutation to a specific gene.

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

The search for causes of crime forms the basis of most criminological studies. There are numerous explanations for crime: psychological, evolutionary, genetical,

The Behavioral Learning Theory believes that behavior is learned from either the environment, the people in the individual's life, the media, or society as a whole. This theory contradicts the Biological theory, which states that criminals are "born to be bad" and that criminal behavior is inherited. The behavioral theory looks at the environment as well as society's impact on how an individual acts which might be the reason for criminal behavior. This theory blames the environment as well as the individual by saying it is a learned behavior and that it also was a choice they made. A basic assumption is that behavior is learned and modeled by individuals, groups, the media, and society as a whole.

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