Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Biological explanations of criminal behaviour
Biological explanations of criminal behaviour
Biological explanations of criminal behaviour
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Biological explanations of criminal behaviour
Theories have been used in many subjects such as science, philosophy, criminology etc… They are what we use to help us gain an understanding of the world we live in. In criminology, it is used to help us define criminality; what causes crime, and why an individual choose to commit crime. These models of comprehension come from three major explanations: sociological, biological and psychological. However, the two more well-known ones are biological and psychological. Biological focuses on the relation between how criminality traits can be hugely influenced by the environment and heredities. Rather than focusing on the genetic traits, psychological approach focuses on the individual`s criminal behaviour and is broken down to several components
Earlier positivist criminologists are known for their theory of “born criminals” as they were greatly inspired by Darwin and his theory of evolution. Biological approach reasoned that genetics play a vital part in the influence of behaviour. In fact, this thinking is also linked to the renowned debate of Nature vs Nurture, which later on resulted in an understanding that it is supposed to be Nature and Nurture (Anderson, 2014). Biological reasoning conducted the twin studies in order to test out the genetic traits of two types of twins (Dizygotic and Monozygotic twins) using concordance rates. As a result of these experiments, it is acknowledged that monozygotic twins tend to have higher concordance rates for criminal behaviour than dizygotic twins. Thus, it reveals that there is a strong genetic basis for criminal behaviour (Anderson, 2014). Not only did genetic play a role between the twins, the environment where the two lived in have an effect on bring out those criminal traits. This was tested out through adoption studies, which were helpful for “separating genetic and environmental influences” (Anderson, 2014, p.149). Adoptees with criminal biological parents were tested, and observed as they grow up in a family of non-criminal adoptive parents. As a result of this, it is believed that if the adoptee is raised in an ethical environment, it
Without biology, it is challenging for psychological approach to back up their theories. Like the key variables of biological factors, that helps psychological approach in assessing risk factors. For instance, Farrington’s long-term anti-social potential which includes key factors of impulsivity, low IQ etc. usually requires biology aspects to it (Heidt, 2014). Impulsivity can be the result of imbalanced hormones or neurotransmitters, and feeblemindedness can be due to genetics. Similarly, poor diet causing low amino acids and brain injuries to the frontal lobe also leads to long-term anti-social. People in this this category are prone to violent behaviours which helps criminologist asses risk
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.
You may have always wondered if there was a correlation between social behaviour and biological functioning. At the back of my mind I am reminded of the almighty biblical “freewill” as a tool to readjust the resultant antisocial behaviour. With the human species it is difficult to assume 100% causal relationship hence it is safe to look at mediating factors that result in a person's antisocial behaviour. Barnes et al (2016) suggests that if one is to gain a greater understanding of Antisocial behaviours one must look at several domains and they include Evolutionary criminology, Biological criminology, Behaviour genetics, Molecular genetics and Neurocriminology. However, on the predictive side, increasingly, studies are examining whether the
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.
Nature and nurture are no longer a debate; we see the two working together in concert to produce a genuine expression of the individual. The personalities and habits humans acquire in their lives is as much a biological evolution as it is a social or cultural acclimatization. While some people still have the argument that it is nature or it is nurture many people have come to the realization that is has to be both. Both nature and nurture developed who we are and what we become. So the question would remain which one influences us more on if we become a criminal. In that it is meant people that live outside the acceptable social norms of that society that may involve punishment or rehabilitation. The impression that people become criminals due to their inheritable factor has not been a popular idea amongst criminologist and has incited anger amongst a lot of them. There have been amazing findings in the fields of genetics that have encouraged a biological evaluation in other social sciences. This has also steered to the appearance of a criminology sub-field called Biocriminology.
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...
Within the past decade there has been a wide range of research and evidence available based on both sides of the nature or nurture debate. Along with further research that identifies a number of determinants that have some form of influence towards criminal behavior and activity. This researc...
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.
Before one can begin talking about what the “Biological Theories” of Criminology are, one must first understand what were the early understandings of crime. The earliest theories tended to focus on supernatural or religious causes, which is where the ideas of witches and witchcraft came into play (e.g., the Salem Witch trials), which today seem ludicrous to even believe in. However, most crime cases focused on the assumption that these criminals were possessed, rather than it being their rational choice to commit the crime, which is where the unconventional, to say the least, treatments came into place, such as exorcisms, burning, or trephining (i.e., making a hole in the scull of the deviant to release the evil spirits from their body… wonder how that worked out?). This explanation soon fell out of favor within the community when individuals (e.g., Lombroso and H.H. Goddard) began finding more conclusive explanations and moved on to explain that it was the individual’s fault, but not necessarily their choice; they used the descriptions of phrenology/physiognomy (which was based off of Darwin’s theory of evolution) and the
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.
Murder, robbery, prostitution, rape; what exactly makes people partake in these crimes? The debate of Nature vs Nurture has never failed to raise questions about people’s personalities and actions. Whether a person commits a crime because of their innate character vs the way they were raised is something that people have been trying to understand for years. Due to this fact, the biosocial perspective of criminology does the best job at explaining criminal behavior because it combines the aspects of nature vs. nurture through various types of family, twin, and adoption studies and studies of the brain.
There are various theories within the biological explanation as to why individuals commit criminal behaviour, these include: genetic theory, hereditary theory, psychosis and brain injury theory. In the next few paragraphs examples of each will be shown.
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.
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