More handpicked essays just for you.
Social inequality as a factor to crime
Genetics strength and weaknesses of criminal behaviour
Genetics strength and weaknesses of criminal behaviour
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Genetic and environmental influences.
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries prominent researches believed that genes were fully responsible for crime. Cesare Lombroso, a medical criminologist from The Italian School of Criminology, argued that criminality was a biological trait found in some human beings. He believed that atavism (the appearance of organisms resembling ancestral forms of life) could be identified by a number of measurable physical stigmata like protruding jaw, drooping eyes and sloping shoulders. (4)
His predecessor, Enrico Ferri, did a study of penology. Penology is the processes devised and adopted for the punishment and prevention of crime. According to him there was no necessity to rehabilitate people that
…show more content…
He is best known for his efforts to formulate a “natural” definition of crime. He redefines crime as a violation of natural law, or a human universal. A human universal is a trait, characteristic, or behavior that exists across cultures. Through this a criminal was marked as inhuman or unnatural. (6)
Today the focus is more on the relationship between genetics and crime than the relationship between phenotypic features and crime. It was established that the environment of a criminal also contribute to criminal behavior. Twin, Adoption and Family studies are conducted and these studies are used to assess the role of genetics and environmental influences. Environmental influences such as peers and family are studied. Factors such as poverty, family structure, education, parenting and abuse will promote an antisocial behavior and children expose to these factors are at greater risk of engaging in criminal acts.
…show more content…
If courts want to accept genetic deficiencies as evidence, it must rather leads to higher sentences on the basis that these people can’t be cured and will always remain a risk to society. Essi Viding (2008) argues that irrespective of where future research leads, genes should not influence sentencing decisions one way or the other because they can never be deemed responsible for behavior. “Any gene alone will be neither necessary, nor sufficient to predispose someone to high levels of psychopathic traits and as such, the responsibility for choosing to offend still resides with an individual,” she said. “Most ‘risk genes' are common in the population and yet do not cause the majority of the individuals carrying them to offend.”
Wilson, Jim. Criminal Genes. Popular Science. Pars International Corp. New York, NY. November 12, 2002. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282176.html
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.
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.
Trait theory views criminality as a product of abnormal biological or psychological traits. It is based on a mix between biological factors and environmental factors. Certain traits alone cannot determine criminality. We are born with certain traits and these traits along with certain environmental factors can cause criminality (Siegel, 2013). According to (Siegel, 2013), the study of sociobiology sparked interest in biological or genetic makeup as an explanation for crime and delinquency. The thought is that biological or genetic makeup controls human behavior, and if this is true, then it should also be responsible for determining whether a person chooses crime or conventional behavior. This theory is referred to as trait theory (Siegel, 2013). According to Siegel (2013), due to the fact that offenders are different, one cannot pinpoint causality to crime to just a single biological or psychological attribute. Trait theorist looks at personal traits like intelligence, personality, and chemical and genetic makeup; and environmental factors, such as family life, educational attainment, economic factors, and neighborhood conditions (Siegel, 2013). There are the Biosocial Trait theories an...
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).
Nature versus nurture has been argued in attempt to understand how criminals behave. The theory of what influences psychopath and serial killers’ violent and destructive pathways has not been agreed on till this day. Criminals such as psychopaths and serial killers have been researched for the past two decades. Scientists have found that genetics is a determining factor of who becomes a serial killer. It is important to understand the determinants involved within a serial killer, because if these social and environmental causes are discovered, they can be altered and controlled to reduce crime (Lykken, 1993). With more studies, we would therefore prevent mass murders and could assist in significant reductions of crime within society.
Tuvblad, C., Grann, M., & Lichtenstein, P. (2006). Heritability for adolescent antisocial behaviour differs with socioeconomic status: Gene-environment interaction. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 734-743. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01552.x
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.
Ceasare Lombroso is one of the first scholars that developed ideas to explain the reasons why some people behaved more deviant than others or committed crimes. Lombroso conducted research on several prisoners measuring facial features and skull size. He later published a book called “the criminal man in 1876” (Dwyer, 2001 p.15). Lombroso believed that there was two different types of human beings, those who had evolved properly and another which did not. They were more primitive an...
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.
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.
The Classical School of Criminology generally refers to the work of social contract and utilitarian philosophers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham during the enlightenment in the 18th century. The contributions of these philosophers regarding punishment still influence modern corrections today. The Classical School of Criminology advocated for better methods of punishment and the reform of criminal behaviour. The belief was that for a criminal justice system to be effective, punishment must be certain, swift and in proportion to the crime committed. The focus was on the crime itself and not the individual criminal (Cullen & Wilcox, 2010). This essay will look at the key principles of the Classical School of Criminology, in particular
...hool of criminology is one of the oldest and most influential principles in the history of criminology. It finally got people to view criminals in a scientific way as opposed to some of the other, less effective methods which had been used previously. While Cesare Lombroso was the first to apply positivism to criminology, it was made possible by the efforts of Auguste Comte, who was the first person to suggest trying to solve problems using scientific reasoning (Adler et al 2012). Also the work of Charles Darwin was able to make society more receptive to the idea of science being an acceptable way to answer questions and solve problems in society. Those three men were able to make criminology a more legitimate and respected field.
TANNENBAUN, B, (2007),Profs link criminal behaviour to genetics [online] , Available at: http://thedp.com/index.php/article/2007/11/profs_link_criminal_behavior_to_genetics [accessed 16th October 2011].