More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparing the biological and social explanations of criminality
Genetic factors that effect criminal behaviour
Genetic factors that effect criminal behaviour
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
I do not believe that any of the biological perspectives hold merit for explaining criminal behavior. The answer to this question if complicated, as Bernard, Snipes, and Gerould (2016) note, biological factors may increase the likelihood of one committing a criminal act, but it is in no way a guarantee that one will engage in criminal behavior. People may have certain biological factors engrained in their DNA that may cause them to gravitate towards a certain mindset or even lifestyle, however just because someone may be predisposed to a certain action or feeling, it does not mean that they will commit a crime.
The first reason for my belief is based on Lombroso’s theory of criminaloids. According to Bernard et al. (2016), Lombroso spent
Biology, genetics, and evolution theory: Is when your body and your way of thinking affects your behavior negatively and force you to commit a crime Being mentally ill or even a poor diet can be the explanation to why someone commits a crime. It’s one of the key theories because it separates the criminals from the mental ill individuals. It also allows us to help the people with the biological defect.
Nature vs. nurture has been one of the oldest and most debated topics among psychologists over the years. This concept discusses whether a child is born into this world with their developmental work cut out for them or if a child is a “blank slate” and their experiences are what shape them into who they are. Over the years and plenty of research, psychologists have all mostly come to agree that it’s a little bit of both. Children are both born with some genetic predispositions while other aspects of the child’s development are strongly influenced by their surrounding environment. This plays into the criminal justice system when discussing where criminal behavior stems from. Is a criminal’s anti-social behavior just part of their DNA or is it a result of their upbringing? The answer to this question is not definite. Looking at research a strong argument can be made that criminals developed their anti-social patterns through the atmosphere in which they were raise, not their DNA.
Lombroso was an Italian criminologist who did extensive research on criminals and why people commit crimes through environmental, biological, psychological studies. Lombroso coined the term "born criminal" and described them as people who were
In the 1800s Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909), Italian criminologist, wrote in his book L'Uomo Delinquente (187...
The first well known study of crime and criminals is that of one who is often referred to as the ‘father of criminology’, Cesar Lombroso. Lombroso’s argument was based around the Darwinian theory of human evolution and his theory argued that criminals were a throw back to an earlier period of human progression. In other words, they were less evolved humans, with visible physical features such as large ears and big lips. His theory suggested that criminals were born and not made therefore, where genetically prone to criminality. Merton’s argument was to the contrary.
Criminal behavior can mostly be explained by the Biosocial Branch of Trait Theory. Individual traits by themselves cannot determine criminality. Outside factors such as the environment along with certain personality traits is what causes criminal behavior.
Biological crime theory describes that an individual is born with the desire to commit a certain crime. Evolutionary factors influence an individual’s involvement in criminal behavior. “Biological theories focus on aspects of the physical body, such as inherited genes, evolutionary factors, brain structures, or the role of hormones in influencing behavior” (Marsh, I, 2006, 3). Murderers that are innate to kill are born with factors such as mental illnesses that are the driving force as to why one may kill. Because of the biological crime theory, some individuals, though rare, are able to plead insanity. This is because the actions of the individual are said to be beyond their control (Ministry of Justice, 2006, 3).
Finding strong evidence surrounding this topic could be significant to reducing crime rates and addressing the public health issue. What I have learn from research-based evidence and analyzing social and cultural theories, is that criminal behavior is multifaceted and is influenced by a range of determinants in which surrounds the nature versus nurture debate. I believe that nature and nurture both play significant roles to the making of a criminal.
I also see that the scholars “underestimate the resiliency of the criminal justice system,” and that this evidence cannot be completely denied. Since I cannot effectively argue properly researched science I would have to stay that some are possibly prone to criminal behavior for genetic reasons but on a minority. From my standpoint I would have to agree with Jones’s conclusion that the criminal justice system will neither crumble from nor ignore the new genetic research but rather integrate it on some level in its
In conclusion it is shown through examinations of a average criminals biological makeup is often antagonized by a unsuitable environment can lead a person to crime. Often a criminal posses biological traits that are fertile soil for criminal behavior. Some peoples bodies react irrationally to a abnormal diet, and some people are born with criminal traits. But this alone does not explain their motivation for criminal behavior. It is the environment in which these people live in that release the potential form criminal behavior and make it a reality. There are many environmental factors that lead to a person committing a crime ranging from haw they were raised, what kind of role models they followed, to having a suitable victims almost asking to be victimized. The best way to solve criminal behavior is to find the source of the problem but this is a very complex issue and the cause of a act of crime cannot be put on one source.
They also explore the myths about the connection between genetic factors and criminal behavior. The first myth they looked at was “Identifying the Role of Genetics in Criminal Behavior Implies That There Is a “Crime Gene.”” This myth is dismissed because of the unlikelihood that that a single gene is responsible for criminal behavior. The second myth they look at is “Attributing Crime to Genetic Factors is Deterministic.” This myth is also easily dismissed because of the fact that just because someone has a predisposition to a certain behavior doesn’t mean that the person will take on that behavior.
On his book (Lombroso, 1885) indicated that biological factors increase the risk of committing crime. He argued that criminals were less evolved as compared to the non-criminals this means they had features including small or large ears, too long arms, twisted nose and sloping heads and he called this people atavistic. As time went on Lombroso indicated or introduced more factors influencing crime to his theory like environmental factors such as climate, poverty, immigration and urbanization incorporating the factor of insanity. All this lead to Lombroso categorizing criminals into four classes namely the born criminals, insane criminals, criminaloids and crimes of
Theories that are based on biological Factors and criminal behavior have always been slightly ludicrous to me. Biological theories place an excessive emphasis on the idea that individuals are “born badly” with little regard to the many other factors that play a part in this behavior. Criminal behavior may be learned throughout one’s life, but there is not sufficient evidence that proves crime is an inherited trait. In the Born to Be Bad article, Lanier describes the early belief of biological theories as distinctive predispositions that under particular conditions will cause an individual to commit criminal acts. (Lanier, p. 92) Biological criminologists are expected to study the “criminal” rather than the act itself. This goes as far as studying physical features, such as body type, eyes, and the shape or size of one’s head. “Since criminals were less developed, Lombroso felt they could be identified by physical stigmata, or visible physical abnormalities…characteristics as asymmetry of the face; supernumerary nipples, toes, or fingers; enormous jaws; handle-shaped or sensible ears; insensibility to pain; acute sight; and so on.” (Lanier. P. 94). It baffles me that physical features were ever considered a reliable explanation to criminal behavior. To compare one’s features to criminal behavior is not only stereotypical, but also highly unreliable.
The first theory to be explored is the hereditary theory, which stems from Cesare Lombroso (1876) father of criminology, (Feldman, 1993) whose studies were carried out by morphology. Lombroso tried to show a relationship between criminal behaviour and physical characteristics. Lombrosco suggested that an individual was predisposed to becoming a criminal, as a result of internal or innate characteristics, rather than environmental factors.
Different schools of thought propose varying theoretical models of criminality. It is agreeable that criminal behaviour is deep rooted in societies and screams for attention. Biological, Social ecological and psychological model theories are key to helping researchers gain deeper comprehension of criminal behaviour and ways to avert them before they become a menace to society. All these theories put forward a multitude of factors on the outlooks on crime. All these theories have valid relevancy to continuous research on criminal behaviour.