The Biological Differences Between Criminal And Non-Criminals In Criminal Justice

(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

The biological theory explains criminal behavior as a result of any illnesses, heredity, trauma or improper development. It proposes several ways for crime control: psychosurgery and chemical methods (Helfgott, 2008). The biological methods of crime control are too expensive and because of that are not widely used.

In the textbook we learn of Casare Lombroso, who argued that criminals could be depicted easily by their physical features. Such as: long arms, large jaw, and forehead. In contrast to biological theories, psychological theories play a role too. The idea that moral development, mental disorders, and personality development are all linked up to criminal behaviors. Just as our textbooks, Raine explains that we need to stop viewing crime from the social side but to view it as the biological side.

Biological Explanations of Crime – Strengths and weakness Biological explanations of crime suggests that crime is due to the nature of an individual, this is highly controversial as it suggests crime is innate and not a cause of the environment. These theories suggest that criminals are born with criminal tendencies. This essay will discuss various biological explanations of crime and point out some strengths and weaknesses. Cesare Lombroso, whom established criminology as a science, founded this theory. He gathered facts in an empirical study and found physiological characteristics to identify ‘The Criminal Man’, these characteristics were; “head-size (circumference/diameter), non-symmetric facial features, sloping forehead, protruding jaw,

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

There are also many perspectives related to these theories including the biological and physiological perspective of explaining crime. The biological perspective tend to suggest that mankind commits crime because of several factors, which include; brain damage, head trauma, blood abnormalities, genetic predispositions, hormonal imbalance, brain abnormalities, hypoglycemia, lack of neurotransmitters in the brain and fetal alcohol syndrome (Canter, 2014). Theories of deviant behavior emanating from biological explanations are not widely accepted more so in the field of criminology, since criminologists center academically on social sciences. This is more so because the society of today perceives biological explanations as if they tend to suggest “hopelessness” (Sutherland et al, 1992). This is an assumption that is totally misguided bearing in mind that the brain is the center of personalities as well as

Theories Biological Theory Biological theories of criminality claim that criminal behavior is the result of some flaw in the biological makeup of the individual. This physical flaw could be due to: • Heredity • Neurotransmitter dysfunction • Brain abnormalities that were caused by either of the above, improper development, or trauma (Raine, 2002) The issue for the community is how to recognize a significant biological contribution to criminal behavior since genetic testing is unreliable and there are no other physical markers of criminality.

Before the mid-1800’s the study of crime fell into the domain of metaphysicians, penologists, and moralists and it was not until Cesare Lombroso that the study of crime was turned into a biological science (Rafter, 2006). Lombroso’s main focus for the biological school of thought was that criminals do have physical characteristics that are well defined and are distinct when compared to people who abide by the law. In fact, Lombroso believed that born criminals had the physical, mental, and instincts of primitive man (earlier stage of human evolution), which meant these born criminals were unsuited for a civilized society and unless incapacitated they would inevitably violate the social and legal rules (Akers & Sellers,

The article, “The Criminal Mind,” written by Dr. Adrian Raine, is about the developing field of neurocriminology (which is, interestingly enough, so new and developing that the word cannot yet be found in the dictionary). According to Dr. Raine, the field of neurocriminology can be described as “using neuroscience to understand and prevent crime.” Dr. Raine discusses the theory of neurocriminology by explaining the relationship between genetics and the environment, and the effect these have on an individual’s brain, thus creating violent tendencies within that individual. The second half of the article focuses on the practical implications of the evidence behind the “physical, genetic, and environmental roots of violent behavior,” as well as how the criminal justice needs to change in order for this evidence to have any effect.

Criminal behavior is something that sociologists commonly study. There are many theories about criminal behavior and deviance that have been made. One that stands out is the theory that criminal behavior, or deviance, being closely related to genetics. This theory refers to cases in which different genetic groups phenotypically respond differently to the same array of environments. Basically, it states that through family a person can become or think like a criminal. The thought that genetics can cause a human to become deviant seems a bit far fetched. Humans have a mind of their own and can make their own decisions, what is in their genes should not define their behavior. This being said, there are

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

In order to analyze the environmental and genetic traits behind criminals. It is very important to understand the theories that describe the major features of delinquents and the reasons of why certain persons engage criminal acts. The environmental and genetic are striking factors and they merit rigorous examination.

Psychobiological theorist feel that a person’s “DNA, environmental contaminates, nutrition, hormones, physical trauma, and body chemistry play important and interwoven roles in producing human cognition, feeling, and behavior –including crime” (Schmalleger, 2009, p.80). These theorists feel that by adjusting an individual’s chemical makeup, the potential for crime would be greatly reduced. However, psychological theories suggest that

In regards to biological theories of crime, there are components to consider, but not to adopt as a world view. More specifically, I do not agree with the persons’ body differences as signs of a future criminal as the text presents (Hendrix, 41). However, I do agree with the text that characteristics can influence (Hendrix, 43). The traits, however, are not a litmus test for a criminal, since self control and environmental factors also exist. If a person’s actions were all based on the way that they look like, what would stop genocides? With this theory as a world view, genocides and other similar practices would appear to be necessary services.

The biological theories of crime have displayed an association among particular biological circumstances and a rise of involvement in criminal conduct. The curiosity in this framework started in 1890s which lead to various arguments that led to the foundation of the biological theory of Cesare Lombroso, whose study of the facial characteristics and skulls of offenders led him to the dispute that continual criminality was linked with the “atavism” which is the reversion of the primitive pace of human development (Akers