Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Examples of biological determinism
How determinism explains behaviour
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
There has always been a fascination with trying to determine what causes an individual to become a criminal? Of course a large part of that fascination has to do with the want to reduce crime, and to determine if there is a way to detect and prevent individuals from committing crime. Determining what causes criminality is still not perfectly clear and likewise, there is still debate as to whether crime is caused biologically, environmentally, or socially. Furthermore, the debate is directly correlated to the notion of 'nurture vs nature'. Over time many researchers have presented various theories pertaining to what causes criminal behavior. There are many theories that either support or oppose the concept of crime being biological rather than a learned behavior. Earlier theories attempted to find a link between human physical characteristics and criminal behavior. In fact, this concept has been tested and modified over time. One theory, suggested by Franz Joseph Gall, is "that mental faculties and traits of character, such as acquisitiveness, benevolence, destructiveness, spirituality, combativeness, and imitativeness, are manifested in separate portions of the brain" (Thompson and Bynum, 2010, PP. 87-88). This system was called Phrenology; it was a popular belief in which practitioners' claimed that by measuring shape, irregularities and protuberances of the skull would allow them to find the mental and behavioral characteristics (Thompson and Bynum, 2010, P. 88). This theory has since been disproved. Another theorist, Cesare Lombroso, referred to as the "father of criminology," used a similar approach to Gall. He "measured the jaw bones, skulls, hands, and other physical traits of a group of prisoners and proposed that crimin... ... middle of paper ... ... an individual’s behavior. The debate of nurture vs nature may in fact be, as the text suggests, more like a nurture and nature scenario. Ultimately, determining the causes of criminal behavior is a very complex process that will continue to evolve over time. References: Hickey, T.J. (2010) Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Crime and Criminology, 9th Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Holder, Eric H. Jr., Robinson, Laurie O., Rose, Kristina. (2009). The Code of the Street and African-American Adolescent Violence. Retrieved July 14, 2010, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/223509.pdf Meadows, R.J. (2010) Understanding Violence and Victimization, 5th Edition, Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc. Thompson, W. E. and Bynum J. E. (2010). Juvenile Delinquency: A sociological Approach Eighth Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Hickey, T. J. (2010). Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Crime and Criminology, 9th Edition. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Across the wide body of studies delving into delinquency in America, it is easy to locate research on and analysis of minorities, underprivileged socioeconomic urban centers, and turbulent family structures. However, this leaves a significant section of the delinquent population largely neglected: white middle-class youth. Contrary to the factors shown to affect delinquency in others and the applications of theory applied to them, the issues plaguing this particular portion of adolescents are in many cases entirely unique, suggesting the necessity of a more nuanced approach from angles that have up until fairly recently remained unexplored.
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.
The biological approach does not explain all people, what about the people with these characteristics that do not resort to crime, or what about other people who commit crimes who do not possess any of these characteristics. I believe like many criminologists Lombroso was looking for a solution to solve criminal behavior and came up with the theory of physical traits linked to criminal behaviors based on some similarities with no real way to test the theory. I think there are many different reasons why people commit crime, such as opportunity, mental illness, family influence, low economic standing and drug dependence. Theories based on these characteristics in my opinion better describe why people resort to criminal behavior over having certain physical
Up until the 19th century, Classicist ideas dominated the way in which people looked at crime. However during the late 19th century a new form of “scientific criminology” emerged, called Positivism (Newburn, 2007). Positivism looked at the biological factors on why someone would commit a crime, this involved looking at the physical attributes of a person, looking at their genetic make-up and their biochemical factors.
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.
Daly, Kathleen, Goldsmith, Andrew, and Israel, Mark. 2006, Crime and Justice: A guide to criminology, third addition, Thomson, Lawbook Co.
A problem many communities are faced with is delinquency and gangs. Delinquency and gangs begin to pull in the similarities and focus more on the meaning connected to youth violence from the past to the present. Based on this context, individuals have an understanding the different ways delinquent juveniles are affected by certain policies. Delinquent youth come in many different age groups, sex, ethic group, and race, while society may look at delinquency as starting out as soon as children enter grade school delinquency starts when a child can fully comprehend there wrong doing.
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.
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.
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.
Criminals are born not made is the discussion of this essay, it will explore the theories that attempt to explain criminal behaviour. Psychologists have come up with various theories and reasons as to why individuals commit crimes. These theories represent part of the classic psychological debate, nature versus nurture. Are individuals predisposed to becoming a criminal or are they made through their environment.
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.