Biocriminology, also referred to as biosocial criminology, commonly has a negative connotation because of its roots from the shadows of eugenics and social Darwinism, long condemned as pseudoscientific and vilified for stoking the German Nazi movement. It is the idea that a person's genes or hormones could lead to criminal behavior, and has been out of favor among most criminologists. However, discoveries in genetics and neurology that have supported theories that genetics do play a role in criminal behavior have led to the emergence of a subfield in criminology. Research will show the heated debate between scientists who are debating biocriminology. While it is very controversial whether biological criminology provides a valid explanation for deviance, it has been proven that some aspects of criminal behavior, such as a tendency towards violence and anti-social disorders, do have genetic components that can be inherited. (See Appendix A) This means that along with other sociological, psychological, or economic factors, biology does have an effect on criminal behavior.
Advances in technology began the interest in the possibility of crime being related to genetics. As technology continues to thrive, the stronger the argument becomes that criminal behavior is caused by genetic make-up. In a Wall Street Journal article of April 27, 2013 Stanton Samenow states, “Brain-imaging techniques are identifying physical deformations and functional abnormalities that predispose some individuals to violence.” The article hails the rising field of “neurocriminology” as revolutionizing our understanding of violent behavior. Neorocriminology and biocriminology go hand-in-hand, both involving studying the physical and mental elements in crime an...
... middle of paper ...
...be traceable to a minority of individuals. This has uncomfortable overtones of eugenics, the pseudo-science which held that mankind could be improved by breeding out the bad, and which the Nazis took a step further by their policy of exterminating the Untermenschen. Even if it stopped there, the idea of the "criminal gene" would be controversial enough, but for modern science opens up new and different possibilities. If there are genes conferring on certain people a genetic predisposition to crime, could they and their carriers be identified, perhaps as early as the womb? What should happen to those embryos? Moreover, if someone is born with a criminal mind, what else should be done with them other than to lock them away for as long as possible? The arguments date back at least to 1870, when Cesare Lombroso, an Italian doctor, devised his theory of the criminal man.
In my opinion, the author defends a good but also complex perspective. '' The criminal activity itself should be taken as evidence of brain abnormality'', says Eagleman, however, what about the percentage of criminals that are not carriers of the genes that contribute to performing violent crimes? Are they going to be sent to rehabilitation too and exonerated from incarceration even when there is proof of no brain
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.
Due to an increased surge of criminality in many cities during the 1900s, eugenicists began to focus on the role of genes in determining criminal behavior. Many lived by the motto “culture does not make the man, but man makes the culture.” This essentially stated that the less fortunate tend to create and gravitate towards poverty stricken environments. While scientists did not totally weigh out the environmental influence on criminality, they did believe the main cause of criminal behavior was defective genes.
People are uniquely different and because of this reason, they do have different behaviors. Crime is one kind of behavior that an individual can engage in. They are punishable by the law and may be prosecuted by the state (Helfgott, 2008). There are different theories existing that try to explain the actions of criminals. They deeply explain what causes an individual to commit a criminal activity. This paper discusses some examples of the biological theories, social theories and psychological theories of crime.
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...
Serial killers are defined to “be driven by instinct and desire to kill.” In a study done in 2000, Dr, Richard Davidson says, “people with a large amount of aggression – in particular people who have committed aggressive murders or have a social disorder – have almost no brain activity in the orbital frontal cortex or the anterior cingulated cortex while activity in the amyglade continued perfectly. The orbital frontal cortex and the anterior congulated cortex control emotional impulses while the amyglade controls reactions to fear.” Davidson concludes his research claiming that although environment can and will affect a serial killer’s thoughts, it is a killer’s genetic makeup that inevitably creates murderous thoughts.
My client who has been accused of; disturbing the peace, damage to public property, and resisting arrest cannot be held responsible for his actions. Due to biological factors which have been the direct cause of his anti-social and impulsive behavior. There is no scientific doubt that genes play quite a large role in anti-social behavior. “The question of whether there is a genetic basis is no longer interesting.” (Raine, 2008) The new question that has emerged is: How much do genes fuel anti-social behavior?
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.
It is a fact that criminals have a smaller brains than law abiding citizens. Often, offenders share particular physical traits such as, being young males, muscular, having lower than average IQ, and a impulsive personality. Serial offenders are usually hyperactive and difficult children If a person has a low IQ, it is proven to be directly related to their tendency to be commit impulse actions that provide an immediate payoff. For instance, a rape or a mugging would provide a criminal with an immediate payoff. It is proven that crime often runs in families. In fact, chronic criminals are proven to be three times more likely to have criminal children. However, despite this information, scientists have no basis to come to any conclusions with this data. Therefore, one must consider other possible factors that may create a criminal mind, to come to a reasonable decision as to how one is developed.
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.
Criminologists and sociologist have long been in debate for century's to explain criminal behaviour. The two main paradigms of thought are between 'nature' and 'nurture'. Nature is in reference to a learnt behaviour where a multitude of characteristics, in society influence whether a person becomes deviant such as poverty, physical abuse or neglect. Nurture defines biological features which could inevitability lead to a individuals deviant or criminal behaviour, because criminality is believed by biological positivist to be inherited from a persons parents. However, I believe that criminal behaviour is a mixture of characteristics that lead to deviant acts such as psychological illness & Environmental factors. Therefore, this essay will aim to analyse both biological positivist and psychological positivist perspectives in hope of showing to what extent they play a role in criminal behaviour. Firstly, the essay will look at Cesare Lombroso's research on physical features and how these ideas have moved on to then develop scientific ideas such as genetics to explain criminal behaviour. Secondly, the essay will focus on external factors which may be able to explain criminal behaviour such as the social influences, life chances and Material deprivation.
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.
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].
I now know that criminology prefer to highlight the correlations between crimes’ social climates and criminals’ psychological states of mind. While some argues that criminal behavior is a result of individuals’ association with criminal peers, other claims that crime is a reflection of an individual’s genetic disadvantages. I have come to learn that there are no universally agreed formulas on decoding crimes and criminal behaviors. What we have, however, is a manual full of academic opinions and subjective views that have emerged alongside of the development of criminology. At the same time, the volume of conflicting perspectives that I have stumble upon in studying criminology reminded me again that the success of our current assessment models has yet to be determined. Thus, the study of criminology is an appropriate practice that will further prepare me to conduct meaningful research on legal studies and to provide accurate and in-depth findings in the near