Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Biological factors and criminal behavior
Biological factors and criminal behavior
Biological factors and criminal behavior
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Biological factors and criminal behavior
Criminal acts (any behaviour which breaks the laws of the land) have, consistently, through history played a large role within society, with 8.5 million crimes committed in the UK alone in the year of 2013. Consequently, many explanations have been offered as to why they occur. Finding a definitive explanation would profit society greatly, since it could prevent anti-social behaviour and improve deterrent techniques. Determinism purports that all physical phenomena (events) have a physical cause governed by physical laws, and therefore since human actions are events, human action has a physical cause governed by physical laws also. In this case then, criminal behaviour is determined by biology, specifically, genetic heredity; criminals are ‘born’ that way.
Recent contributions to psychological research have suggested that explanations based on reductionist methods, rather than holistic ones, are most desired. Bem (2001) claimed that scientists, who used reductionist methods, published the most papers, were cited the most frequently, and were awarded the most grant money, inferring that when possible these methods should be used. The philosophical position of reductionism asserts that all phenomena are ultimately reducible to something more basic. It is often termed as the ‘nothing but’ theory. Ontologically speaking, that all facts are fixed physical facts and therefore, psychological states are ‘nothing but’ physical states. In reductionism then, like determinism, ideally, criminality has one explanation that clearly determines its cause and this ultimate explanation is a neurobiological one.
The first psychologist to suggest that criminal behaviour is biologically determined was Lombroso (1875) . He classified criminals i...
... middle of paper ...
... 65-71.
Crime in England and Wales, Year ending June 2013 (2013) [Online] Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-june-2013/stb-crime-in-england-and-wales--year-ending-june-2013.html (Accessed 23/03/14)
Gomes, G. (2007). Free will, the self, and the Brain. Behavioural Sciences and The Law, 25(2), 221-234.
Gross, R. (2003). Themes, Issues and Debates in Psychology (2nd Ed.). London: Hodder & Stoughton. P241-263.
Herlihy, J. & Gandy, J. (2002). Causation and Explanation. The Psychologist, 15(5), 248-251.
Hollin, C. R. (2013). Psychology and Crime: An Introduction to Criminological Psychology. London: Routledge. p48-76.
Raine, A. (1993). The Psychopathology of Crime: Criminal Behaviour as a Clinical Disorder. San Diego: Academic Press. p50.
Siegel, L. J. (2005). Criminology. California: Thomson Wadsworth. p25
Gross, R (2010). Psychology: The science of mind and behaviour. 6th ed. London: Hodder Education. p188.
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
Young, J. (1981). Thinking seriously about crime: Some models of criminology. In M. Fitzgerald, G. McLennan, & J. Pawson (Eds.), Crime and society: Readings in history and society (pp. 248-309). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
...& Snipes, J. (2010). Biological Factors and Criminal Behavior.Vold's theoretical criminology (6th Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Eysenck, H.J., & Gudjonsson, G.H. (1989). The causes and cures of criminality. Contemporary Psychology, 36, 575-577.
Wilson, James and Herrnstein, Richard. "Crime & Human Nature: The Definitive Study of the Causes of Crime" New York: Free Press, 1998.
However as research in to the causes of criminality has developed, we have now come to understand that these aspects of appearance do not contribute to the likelihood of someone becoming criminal. Osborn and West (1979) furthered this study of genetics by comparing the criminality of parents to children and found that the children that had parents with a criminal record have a 40% chance that they will also go on to commit crime (ref). Although this seems to give fairly substantial support the link between genetics and criminality, on the other hand 60% of the children did not go on to commit crime so this study does not have strong support for the criminal gene. Other suggestions have been made that links biology to criminality such as personality traits leading people to be more likely to be come criminal. Hans Eysenck (1977) suggested that individual differences originated in aspects of biology. One example of a personality trait that is used to explain this concept is neuroticism and how this is developed from a difference in arousal levels of the nervous system compared to ‘normal’ people, and this is established in development through childhood (ref). Overall the biological approach does contribute some valuable points to the study of
The foundation of our legal system rest upon the single philosophy that humans hold their own fate. Even though, we perceive in our daily lives the persistence of causation and effect. Even children understand the simplistic principle that every action will have a reaction. Despite this obvious knowledge, we as a society still implanted the belief that our actions are purely our own. Yet, with the comprehension of force that environmental factors impact our development, we continue to sentence people for crimes committed. Moreover, uncontrollable environmental influences are not the only deterministic factors we ignore in our societal view of crime. One’s biological composition can work against any moral motives that they
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.
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...
Bartol, A. M., & Bartol, C. R. (2011). Criminal behavior: A psychological approach (9th ed).
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. 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. The first theory to be explored is the hereditary theory, which stems from Cesare Lombroso (1876) father of criminology, (Feldman, 1993) whose studies were carried out by morphology.
Biological criminology does not have the long history of acceptance as Classical, but its contribution is still valuable to the field. Early biological theories did share a core belief of positivism with some of classical theories. Early studies of criminals from the biological angle tended to look at physical traits, such as the size and shape of one’s head or body. One of the earliest examples that we have of this is Franz Gall and his Theory of Craniology. He stated that the shape of the human skull could tell us about personality and wether someone is a criminal or ‘normal’. (Schmalleger, pp. 46-47) Another belief that came from early biological studies was atavism from Cesare Lombroso’s studies. Lombroso, whose studies brought about today’s Criminal anthropology, believed that criminals had a remnant of primitive urges that had not completely been removed through the process of evolution. (Schmalleger, pg. 47) Constitutional theory believed that a criminal could be identified by mere body type and that typically those with a more athletic and muscular (Mesomorphic) body were more likely to commit crimes. (Schmalleger, pg. 49) Although, as we moved into modern day criminology, we can see that these sort of theories are flawed. Today in law enforcement, officers strive to be in as good of shape as
Criminality constitutes strategic mannerisms characterized by apathy to misery inflicted on others, egocentricity and depressed self-control. Habitual criminal behaviour seeks to satisfy the offender’s desires for material prestige, power or pleasurable feelings regardless to damage inflicted to victim or society. Such behaviors extend mistrust, fuel prejudice, and largely corrupt social cohesion. Biological, psychological and environmental attributes are thought to heavily influence antisocial and criminal behaviour. Numerous studies have proven that active emulation, genetic predispositions and psychosocial labeling are all complementary to development and expressions of criminal behaviour. There has historically been a myriad of theories that attempt to explain criminal behaviour through different perspectives, all which constitute intricate paradigms that play a role in expressio...
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