Assessment 2 Question 1
Biological theories attempt to explain criminal behavior as a product of individual characteristics. They emerged largely as a rejection of the classical view that participation in crime is as a result of free personal will and rational choice (Nagin, 2007) . They questioned the utilitarian claim that individuals would choose those behaviors that bring good while avoiding those that bring pain. Biological theories fall within the broader paradigm of positivism that holds that behavior, including criminal behavior, is a product of factors that transcend the control of the individual. To this extent, positivists believe in determined criminal behavior. Thus, biological theories of crime look into specific biological qualities that predispose individuals to crime (Fishbein, 2003) .
Biological approaches can be categorized into three broad perspectives largely based on the evolution of the concept: those that base criminal disposition on specific inborn and outward physical characteristics, those that trace the problem to hereditary or genetic traits and those that base their assertions on the basis of functional, structural and chemical differences in the body and the brain (Walters & White, 1989) . These perspectives are however a product of evolution in research and scientific advancement. A chronology of this evolution is however daunting since some of these developments coincided with each other and at times in different parts of the world. A general sketch will, however, be provided. What is worth pointing out here is that most of the early versions of biological theories have been discredited with advancements in research.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Biological theorists thought that the classical theories of crime that emerged in the age of enlightenment failed to account for the causes of criminal behavior by merely explaining the entire gamut of criminal behavior through rational choice theory. The advent and progression of scientific method and thought, according to these scholars, demanded a different approach to crime. The modern scientific method offers a systematic way of analyzing specific problems in society without relying on mystical or spiritual explanations that characterized prior attempts (Walters & White, 1989) . The obvious place to start for these early scientists was the external attributes that distinguished ordinary individuals from criminals. The notion that physical traits can determine the character, behavior and moral disposition of an individual is however quite ancient, predating most biological theories of criminal behavior. As early as the times of Pythagoras, 500BCE, the concept of physiognomy ran rampant. Aristotle amongst other ancient Greeks believed in early physiognomy that concentrated on the facial characteristics of individuals as a predictor of crime (Fishbein, 2003) .
Writings of Italian scholar like Giambattista Della Porta (1535) and John Kapsar (1801) painstakingly emphasized the influence of physical characteristics such as shape and size of the eyes, nose, ears, chin, and face as predictors of criminal behavior. The 17 th century saw the emergence of phrenology that shifted attention in the prediction of behavior from various organs of the body to the brain (Fishbein, 2003) .
Theorists such as Franz Joseph Gall (1800) and Johann Spurzheim (1776-1832) were some of the canonical thinkers in this approach. While the former emphasized cranioscopy as a predictor of individual strengths, morals, character, proclivities and personality, the latter coined phrenology that expanded the range and hierarchy of brain organs that influence criminal behavior. Cesare Lombroso (1835-1907), influenced by the ideas of Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin-origin of species and descent of man, underscored heredity in criminal traits and their atavistic nature (Walters & White, 1989) .
It was, however, Gregor Mendel (1822-1864) who shifted attention from phenotypical to genotypical considerations with his seminal works on genetics. Ideas of eugenics by Francis Galton were however what gave further credence to the notion that criminal behavior was a product of a flawed genetic composition that could be overcome through selective reproduction (Walters & White, 1989) . Biological theories gained traction in the post-World War II period more so for their counter to the prevailing notions of the environment as the determinant of criminal behavior.
These theories, however, declined in the 1960s with the indictment they had been used to justify discrimination, especially racial prejudice. More modern studies on genetic influence on criminal behavior appear to be more cautious about linking criminal behavior to genetics especially in light of adoption studies (Wilcox, Land, & Hunt, 2003) . More recent studies that have concentrated on biochemical explanations of diet, hormones, and neurotransmitters appear to be more persuasive in attempting to explain a predisposition to crime. These biological attempts however remain a work in progress despite the tremendous evolution that has taken place over the years. Technological advancements are bound to increase interest in this area of inquiry. Environmental factors appear to be more prominent than explanations based in biology. A general trend, however, has to be observed in biological inquiry; a shift from concentration on outward characteristics to biochemical orientation in the inquiry.
Assessment 2 Question 2
The rational choice theory holds that the decision to partake in criminal behavior is a product of a cost benefit analysis. In other words, a criminal will engage in criminal acts if he thinks that the benefits outweigh the cost. To this end, rational choice proponents view criminal behavior as essentially being no different from noncriminal acts. At the core of rational choice theory is the idea that there is no compulsion on the part of the criminal to engage in crime and therefore he or she has free will. It thus repudiates psychological, environmental and biological explanations of crime (Nagin, 2007) .
Deterrence theory shares the same fundamental assumptions with rational choice theory and can, in fact, be considered to be its subtype. The major distinction is in the specificity of deterrence theory. Deterrence theory holds that the threat of punitive action is sufficient to prevent individuals from committing a crime. For instance, the threat of being arrested prevents potential criminals from engaging in crime. A former detainee is unlikely to engage in criminal behavior for fear of suffering a similar fate of detention. Put simply, deterrence is concerned not so much with the causes of crime but with penalties or sanctions as potential deterrents to crime (Nagin, 2007) . The theory was developed by 18th-century thinkers who sought to underscore the value of legal punishment. The theory has in contemporary times been expanded to include non-legal penalties like social and self-censure. While some empirical studies have defended the validity of deterrence theory, others stand in stark conflict.
Routine activities theory focuses not on the causes of criminal behavior but on how crime is produced. It holds that it is the routine activities that people engage in that influence the where, the when and to whom of crime. These routines such as going to work, schools, and the groups we socialize with, and where we do it, is what predisposes us to crime (Eck & Clarke, 2003) . These routines, according to this school, have the potential to make crime easy or difficult and increase or lower the risk of crime. Routine theory initial use was in explaining trends crime over time and in different areas. It is thus closely associated with environmental criminology. The theory has vast practical implications, especially for law enforcement strategies. It is also extensively utilized in the study of crime patterns and crime distribution across space and over time (Eck & Clarke, 2003) .
It is near impossible to point out a single criminological theory that could explain the entire gamut of criminal behavior. This is partly because of the huge assumptions made by some of these theoretical approaches, the complementarity role they share and the absence of techniques to test some of these assumptions. Nevertheless, it is possible to rank these theories on the basis of persuasive power. The rational choice theory stands as one of the most persuasive theories not just because it easily lends itself to empirical verification but also because of the forcefulness of deterrence, which further succors it.
References
Eck, J., & Clarke, R. (2003). Classifying common police problems: A Routine activity approach. Criminal Prevention Studies, 16 .
Fishbein, D. (2003). Biobehavioral Perspectives in Criminology. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Nagin, D. S. (2007). Moving Choice to Center in Criminological Research and Theory. Criminology , 260-269.
Walters, G., & White, T. W. (1989). Heredity and crime: Bad genes or bad research? Criminology , 462-477.
Wilcox, P., Land, K., & Hunt, S. (2003). Criminal Circumstance: A Dynamic, Multi-contextual Criminal Opportunity Theory. Newyork: Aldine de Gruyter.
