How Do Biological Factors Cause Crime

This can be applied to the behaviors of criminals. According to Fishbein (1990, pg.37), “behavior [is] primarily attributed to inherited predispositions and genetic influences.” Nurture is the environmental influence that shape human behavior (Fishbein, 1990, pg.37). Human genetics and environmental factors contribute to the uniqueness to a person’s behavior. However, there are underlying qualities in a criminal’s historical background. Aspects of the nature and nurturing of a criminal behavior includes some problems with earlier biological explanations and some recent biological explanations which have overcome the weaknesses of

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.

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).

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.

There are many theories for why criminals are criminals. These theories have been developed, changed, and even thrown out over the years. Each one has been contradicted and reaffirmed, until eventually there is a consensus for both biological and sociological reasons which would explain why a person would act criminally or participate in a criminal act/behavior. I argue that the most relevant theories to answering why a person would do these things are social disorganization and neurological factors, specifically testosterone levels in males.

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.

The biological theories are an essential to criminal justice professionals to explain why the genetic characteristics of the human being's body chemicals and evolutionary aggressive criminal conduct have been proposed as explanations for crime; however, to distinguish criminals from non-criminals without adding the value judgment. (Bohm & Vogel, 2011) “Biological theories can be understood as a broad, science-based, anthropological approach to understanding criminality” (Swan, 2017, para. 4). It is important to understand the body type based on the functions of the brain. Therefore, there are several different methodologies to describe the physical differences between criminals and non-criminals such as physiognomy, phrenology, criminal anthropology, the study of the body types, heredity, and scientific technologies that examine the brain function and structure to give the criminal justice profession another look into an individual before a biased take.

When looking at criminal activity and the direct connection to the criminal behavior we see that there have been many research trials that have taken place over the history of humankind (Mishra & Lalumiere, 2008). Two of these research areas that have been developed to attempt to understand the causes of criminal behavior are known as biological and psychological perspectives of crime causation. These two sectors have their principles that are held in their theories as a standard scientific understanding of the basics that each evaluation of criminal behavior is built on (Dretske, 2004).

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.

According to the article "My Genes Made Me Do It” by Stanton Peele, Ph.D, and Richard DeGrandpre, Ph.D, “The goal of determining what portion of behavior is genetic and environmental will always elude us. Our personalities and destinies do not evolve in this straightforward manner” (Peele). Many factors can influence behavior, and behavior is not simple. It is very complex and can in some cases cause people to behave criminally. There are genetic factors that can influence a person’s behavior as well as environmental factors. All of these factors should be considered when looking at criminal behavior. The factors that affect a persons likelihood to commit a crime include genetic and environmental influences, but there are ways to prevent crime.

The most vivid example of the biological determinism is the theory of Cesare Lombroso. Lombroso based his theory on the assumption that criminals have certain physiognomic features or abnormalities. Lombroso wanted to be able to detect future criminals in order to isolate them from the society. This gave criminology a strong push to create new methods of dealing with criminals and prevent crimes. Lombroso implied that prisoners had common facial characteristics. If to exaggerate criminals in Lombroso’s theory can be identified through the shape of their skulls, asymmetry of the face and head, large cheekbones, ears and lips, long arms and a twisted nose. Lombroso’s theory is the oldest one and it

Behavioral neuroscience or biological psychology employs the principles of brain pathology to the study of human behavior through genetic, physiological, and developmental operations, as well as, the brain’s capacity to change with experience. Since the second world war, crime was largely attributed to mostly economic, political, and social factors, along with what psychologists termed at the time, the “weak character” of mental disturbance, and brain biology was rarely considered. However, new advances in neuroscience and technology have allowed a number of studies that link brain development, impairment, and injury to criminal violence. This emerging field of psychology explores the brain at a microscopic level, focusing studies on the roles that the brain’s neurons, circuitry, neurotransmitters, and basic biological processes play in defining and molding all human behavior.

Throughout the history of criminology, each theory dominates and gains support than others though different period of time. This essay will first discuss the argument for biological determinism which mainly focuses on phrenology. The idea of Darwinism also links to Lombroso’s idea that a person’s bad behavior can be predicted and should be eliminated will also be discussed. The second part of the essay will emphasis the classical theory and how in contrasts with the positivism approach centralizing on the two theorist Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria, the farther of classical theory. The latter social strain theory that have a little link to classical theory will also be discussed and why it should

For the most part, biological theories of crime and deviance have had an unsuccessful and undistinguished career among sociologists. The Italian physician Cesare Lombroso suggested that someone who is born criminal possesses atavism or primitive evolutionary characteristics that produced violent, savage, and apelike tendencies in humans (Goode, p. 27). In addition, biological theories of deviance see crime and deviant behavior as a form of illness due to pathological factors to certain individuals. The biological theory is another example of Charles Whitman actions. Smart, strong, and talented, Charles Whitman seemed like a perfect all-American boy stereotype.