Theories Of Crime Essay

Theories of crime inferred include the biological theory; positivism, atavism and somatotype. Positivism infers that offenses are made due to many factors outside of the offender’s control, making them crime prone (White and Haines, 2000, pp. 36). Atavism believed ‘criminals were biological throwbacks … people more primitive’ (Bernard and Vold et al., 2010, pp. 38). People committing the coward punch ‘don’t ever develop and many are delayed’ and that it is an atavistic feature that is ‘very primitive.’ (Munro, P. 2014, pp. 3) explains Hickie, executive director of the Brain and Mind Research Institute, inferring positivism and atavism. The somatotype theory explains crime is committed by people with muscular builds who enjoy physical activity involving crime. Most criminals are seen as mesomorphs who are muscular, action orientated and aggressive, similar to McNiel’s character who is ‘A labourer with a love of bodybuilding ‘ (Munro, P. 2014, pp. 3).

Strengths within the article to understanding the causality of crime are provided by the different causations introduced for committing the coward punch. It allows readers to understand that there is not one sole motivation to crime but many. The several factors suggested by citizens within the article that correlate with the coward punch are sociological or biological ‘They want to look good in front of their friends’ or ‘They’re just aggressive and there’s nothing you can do’ (Munro, P. 2014, pp. 2). The other strengths is the statistical evidence supplied by The Australian of Statistics, as it offers a further understanding by indicating the amount of people affected by this crime. Limitations to this article are due to the lack of information provided on consequences and punis...

... middle of paper ...

...ng a crime as Rafter explains that ‘each individual is capable of developing in more than one way’ (Rafter, N. 2006, pp. 48) it is not only dependent on biological factors.

Raine (1997 : 137) suggests that Eysenck was a decade ahead of his time when in developing a biosocial approach to crime as he writes, ‘for it is only now that this approach is beginning to be embraced by a wider scientific community.’ (Rafter, N. 2006, pp 49). The article is suggests this idea to be so because ‘the trend [is now] toward biosocial research' (Rafter, N. 2006, pp 48) even though this approach to crime was already introduced a decade ago by Eysenck. He is noted to be ‘the hero of biosocial research on offending’ (Rafter, N. 2006, pp 49) because he offered a new way to look at crime and deviant behaviour that was evolutionary to biological determinism and psychological influences.