There is no single determinant or cause of crime. Indeed, crime is quite a sophisticated idea that can change based on time and culture. In essence, legal activities in one nation, such as consumption of alcohol in the United States, are potentially not allowed in other countries. With the change in culture and cultural practices, some of the activities or behaviors that were deemed criminal are once again being normalized (Agnew, 2005). Therefore, this makes it challenging to understand what comprises a crime. For this reason, there lacks any answer to comprehend the cause of crime. The various forms of crimes typically have their specific causes.
The biological description of crime perceives that some individuals are criminals because of their birth process. The underlying precepts of the biological theory of crime contend that the major determinants of human behaviour are to a significant level determined by genetics. At the same time, the fundamental human behaviour determinants can be passed from one generation to the other (Agnew, 2005). Therefore, criminal behaviours are determined by various aspects such as an individual's DNA, the contaminants in the environment, nutrition, hormones, being exposed to drugs and alcohol when pregnant and traumatic experiences. As a result, various biological theories describe the origin or cause of a specific crime.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Cesare Lombroso is one of the most famous criminologists. Lombroso developed an interest to investigate cadavers to conclude about the physiological features for criminal practice description, but concentrating on the criminal instead of the crime. He got his inspirations from Charles Darwin’s evolution theory. Similarly, Lombroso also relied on atavism, which is the tendency to reverting the traditional form, a throwback to evolution.
The biological theories are part of the positive theory. Positivism arose in the 19 th century, mainly to explain the law-violating actions to respond to the perception of the harshness of the classical school practices. The Age of Enlightenment witnessed classical thought, which claimed that the operations of a human being are based on the free will and rational thinking that chooses the course of action to undertake (Agnew, 2005). Classical theorists posit that people often take part in certain pleasurable behaviours and avert those painful to them. In essence, an individual would be deterred from committing a crime if the punishment imposed inflicts pain and outweighs the pleasure. For most of their parts, classical theorists did not accept that torture being used as a form of punishment was unnecessary in preventing the future happening of an act. In particular, classical theorists believed that punishment ought to be proportionate to the action of crime for its efficacy.
Phrenology
Phrenology is a biological theory of crime that claims that human actions originated from the brain. Indeed, this distinctive belief departed from the others that focused on four humors as the primary basis for emotions. The first one is the sanguine or blood which can be found in the liver, and it is the major motivator of love and courage. The next one is the choleric, also known as the yellow bile, and it is found in the gall bladder. It deals with anger and temperament issues. The melancholic or the black bile is found in the spleen, linked to depression and irritability (Agnew, 2005). Lastly, phlegm is found in the brain and lungs; its primary association is calmness. In theory and practically, relocation of responsibilities for behaviours from different parts of the brain is a primary point of developing the scientific evaluation of behaviour and the development of biological understanding of crime.
Various scholars and scientists initiated the concept of phrenology to explain the biological theories of crime. Gall, for instance, developed the 27 brain organs found in the human skull. In essence, a depression in a certain zone of the skull would show the strength of limitations in that specific place. For instance, the Gall’s map in different zones of the skull was perceived to be linked to the individual’s processes of engaging in a deviant action. The various areas corresponding to different tendencies. For example, one corresponding to the tendency of committing murder, and the other corresponded to the stealing tendency. Even though the idea was not broadly accepted in Europe, most English elites implemented the ideas of Gall to show the level of oppression people were facing. The same actions were common in America. Even though Gall’s findings were crude, the subsequent study used this as the basis to understand the brain as the basis of behaviours or actions.
Cesare Lombroso
Lombroso was among the first to use Darwin's theory of evolution to criminal behaviours. As positivist criminology, Lombroso turned down the classical argument which posited that crime was a feature of human nature or condition (Rafter, 2017). Instead, Lombroso used the concepts found from the previous perspectives, including physiognomy, to argue that criminality was a concept that could be inherited and that an individual who was born as a criminal could be identified easily by checking the physical issues confirming a criminal as atavistic.
As a result, Lombroso came up with the Criminal Man in 1876, which helped create the new positive school in criminology. He was motivated by the evolutionary theory and contended that crime is a consequence of the biological differences among the criminals and the non-offenders. Lombroso primarily focused on the idea of atavism. The term is used to explain the resurfacing of the features of an organism of some local ancestors after a lot of years of generational absence. Primarily, the organism that shows atavism is a throwback. It simply refers to the re-emergence of the previous behaviour outlook. Indeed, Lombroso affirmed that criminals should be categorized as throwbacks on an evolutionary level. In his beliefs, Lombroso contended that contemporary criminals have similarities in their physical states, called stigmata, with primitive beings. In the years that came later, he ascertained that social and environmental elements are also the precursor to criminality.
In his conclusion, Lombroso had examined the corpses of the executed criminals to understand their physical exhibitions regarding atavism. He developed the typological system that consisted of four major criminal forms. Even though he had many flaws in his approaches, the larger part of the traits he had listed could not differentiate criminals from the matched parts of the non-criminals (Rafter, 2017). He became the first person to use scientific principles to collect data and statistical strategies for data analysis. Additionally, apart from evaluating the physical features of a criminal, Lombroso also examines the situation that motivates crime. Furthermore, he studied female criminality and ascertained that this gender is more likely to commit crimes of passion. Lombroso affirmed that most offenders had inherited their criminal features, and they were born that way because they inherited the same from their evolutionary ancestors. He described these criminals as possessing protruding foreheads, robust jaws, and long arms. Criminals with these features comprised approximately 33% of all criminals. The other 67% were minor offenders who typically commit common crimes.
Even though Lombroso is broadly remembered for his arguments that criminal behaviours could be inherited, he also ascertained that environmental elements had a significant role in the crime. He indicated that changes in the climatic conditions, consumption of alcohol, and ignorance could result in criminality (Rafter, 2017). Lombroso also decided to take another route to understand a hereditary source of criminal actions in his work. Enrico Ferri, one of his students, did not agree with Lombroso's affirmation of the physiological. Instead, he preferred to evaluate the interactive impacts of physical elements, personal factors, and the social components and relate criminality to the non-existence of morality in a society. Raffaele Garofalo, another Italian, came up with a theory that focused on natural crime. In essence, his focus was on the actions that could be avoided or limited through punishment (Rafter, 2017). According to Garofalo, it is imperative to eliminate people who pose a danger to society to enhance the quality of society and ensure that it survives. Same as Ferri, Garofalo also believed that crime originates from a lack of moral sensibilities instead of physiological issues.
Charles Goring refuted the findings from Lombroso. Using a sample of more than 3,000 criminals and controlled statistical comparison of non-criminals, Goring sort to understand the causes of crimes in a society. Goring did not establish any significant physical differences between the two apart from height and weight, where he claimed that criminals were smaller in body size (Rafter, 2017). These findings were a discredit to Lombroso's notion of a person being born criminal as a study into the criminal types continues.
Body Physique and Crime
More research regarding the biological roots of crime ensued after the Second World War. In 1925, Kretschmer followed the same route as Lombroso to affirm that there is a direct association between biology, especially the physique nature of a person and his or her personality. The same argument was put forward by William H. Sheldon, who used the classification system and the corresponding physical aspects. Sheldon ran contrary to the existing sociological focus of the environmental elements and their implication to criminality by implementing Darwin's survival of the fittest argument, the eugenics argument by Galton, and Lombroso's criminal man (Tong, 2020). In his argument, Sheldon argued that crime is a result of the combination of the perfectly formulated physique and disposition. Any other combination that did not operate in the prism of this ideal was linked to the disorders of behaviour and personality. He contended the physical basis for every variation in personality and body build.
In the early 1940s, Sheldon created and tested his classification approach called somatotype. He developed three primary categories. The first one he called ectomorphs, and their physique was delicate and flat and linear. The endomorphs were obese and heavy, with a soft and round physique (Tong, 2020). Lastly, the mesomorphs had a rectangular shape, sturdy, and more masculine. Sheldon further held a subsequent study in juvenile delinquency. He claimed that the mesomorphic types had a more likelihood of engaging in criminal activities, and the ectomorphs were likely to fall victims to suicidal actions. The endomorphs have a higher likelihood of being mentally ill. Even though the physical and psychological features were compared and ascertained that the two were a consequence of hereditary, he did not support the assertion with exceptional statistical approaches.
Before the start of the 1950s, Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck initiated a longitudinal study in juvenile delinquency using the control groups and enriched the somatotypes list. In this study, the two authors added an extra fourth type, and they referred to it as the balanced. Their study supported the previous findings by Sheldon, which affirmed that mesomorphs are highly linked to crimes (Tong, 2020). From the researched juveniles, the mesomorphic somatotype had disproportionate representation among the delinquents with a ratio of approximately two to one instead of the nondelinquent controls. Additionally, more than 40% of the nondelinquent controls were classified as ectomorphs, and only 14% of delinquents falling in this group. Rather than linking the body type to delinquency, the researchers ascertained that indulgence in delinquency, where a person may be arrested with ease, can be enhanced through the mesomorphic type of body instead of the ectomorphic or the balanced type of body.
The biological theories of crime were not popular in the 1960s because of the assertion that the inherent use of inferiority was not used effectively to justify bias. At the same time, this period also witnessed significant growth in scientific evolution and methods, with social and natural sciences taking precedence (Rafter, 2017). As a result, criminologists were now more interested in evaluating the inner elements and procedures in a human body.
Genetics in the Contemporary Biological Theories
A concerted effort to establish the genetic understanding for aggression has been opposed, mainly because of the inappropriate ways the previous studies linked biology to criminal activities. At the University of Maryland, there was a huge conference on the Human Genome Project that was not funded in the end because of the attempts to discuss the link or relationship between genes and violence (Raine, 2002). Various groups who opposed this meeting claimed that the research would be implemented at the expense of the poor and the minority. Even though the genetic study started with Mendel's inheritance laws, our comprehension of the effects of genes on our actions is on the rise. The rise of the genetic code in the 1950s made us realize that genes took part in the heredity to a more significant comprehension of how hereditary traits are transferred from one generation to a different one. The discovery approach involved understanding the structure and roles of chromosomes, which have the human genetic material.
There are 22 pairs of chromosomes in a human cell and a pair of chromosomes that can distinguish sex. The X and Y chromosomes are the common elements for sex determination. Females have XX while males have YY. The sperm of a male person has a genetic component to the egg of a female compatriot. In the event that the sperm fertilizing the female egg has the Y chromosome, the embryo that ensues will grow into a male fetus. However, if the fertilizing sperm has the X chromosome, the embryo that ensues develops into a female fetus. However, in the whole process of conception, some things could happen abnormally. For instance, in that procedure, some men could still have an additional Y chromosome XYY. This is called the supermale, and he carries the chromosomal pattern with a normal pattern. He may not potentially know that he has the extra Y chromosome unless he undergoes genetic testing (Rafter, 2017). With the fact that the Y chromosome is highly linked to the male sex and the high rates of production in testosterone, various claims have been put forward in different studies that XYY males are not only violent but also aggressive. However, this claim is yet to be supported by scientific studies.
The scientific developments in the genetics correlation of behavior more concise and less perception. Even though scholars are unwilling to link criminal behaviors with a certain gene, researchers are still investigating the inheritability of certain features. The most promising work is linked to the study of adoptees.
In the adoption studies, the adoptees' behaviors are linked to the results of the adopted and the biological parents. The primary purpose is to distinguish the effect of the environment from the impact of heredity. Will the child show the features and traits of the adopted or the biological parents? Research shows that the adoptee with a criminal biological parent has a high likelihood of engaging in property crime than the others. At the same time, the impact is more robust for boys (Choy et al., 2020). A study carried out in Denmark from a sample of 14,427 children showed that there is a genetic factor or element in predisposing antisocial behaviors. Others studies of similar nature in Sweden and the United States had similar conclusions.
Walters and White further carried out a meta-analysis adoption study and reiterated the significance of the adoption research as the best possible way to establish the effect of genetics on criminality and indicated that the theoretical and methodological challenges impede this approach. For instance, determining whether the adoptive parent has a criminal background does not provide any substantial information on the social environment offered in the adoptive parents' homes. Furthermore, the broad definitions of criminality and crime in studies could provide other challenges. For instance, one research classifies the use of bad language and other antisocial behaviours as criminality. At the same time, the studies fail to account for the amount and quality of social interactions witnessed in various places, such as the adoptive versus the biological. Lastly, determining that an individual is a criminal based on conviction or incarceration is a big issue and does not mind undetected criminal actions.
References
Agnew, R. (2005). Why do criminals offend? A general theory of crime and delinquency.
Choy, O., Focquaert, F., & Raine, A. (2020). Benign biological interventions to reduce offending. Neuroethics, 13(1), 29-41.
Rafter, N. H. (2017). HJ Eysenck in Fagin’s kitchen: The return to biological theory in 20th-century criminology. In Biosocial Theories of Crime (pp. 131-150). Routledge.
Raine, A. (2002). The biological basis of crime. Crime: Public policies for crime control, 43, 74.
Tong, X. Y. (2020). Is crime hereditary? An analysis of biological ideas from eugenics to the human genome project (Doctoral dissertation).
