Biological Explanations of Crime and Deviance - Literature review Example

Outline and critically evaluate biological explanations of crime and deviance For many years criminologists and other scholars have formulated different theories about the causes for criminal activities and what would drive a person to commit a crime. The biological factor is one theory that has created much debate over its assumptions and findings. While the biological aspect can be examined as a contributing factor it should be noted that there are various other factors at play and biology is not the sole explanation for crime and deviance. The biological theory explains crime and deviance with a bias towards genetic, neurological, chemical or physiological attributes. Prior to the nineteenth century criminal behaviour and deviance was explained using the classical theory. The classical tradition was more humanistic in its approach as it explained that humans carry out certain actions through their own free will. This theory is closely related to the ideas of Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria. According to Bentham’s ideas criminal acts are designed to satisfy either of two masters that rule mankind: pleasure and pain (Gottfredson and Hirschi 5). According to Bentham, the theory of crime composed of four elements namely physical, religious, moral and political sanctions. This theory pointed to the consequences of committing the acts and criminals were somewhat guided or overshadowed by the different sanctions. The biological explanation is more scientific in its outlook. Cesare Lombroso is credited to be the father of biological positivism. He was an Italian doctor employed in the penal system in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Positivism relates to the application of scientific methods to the social aspect of life. This differentiates the biological theory from the classical theory. The scientific aspect is what led to the new field of research of criminal anthropology. One of Lombroso’s biological explanations was that many criminals have an inherent gene that determines their criminality. His theory of atavism explains that criminals are akin to an ancestral form of life, “a throwback to an earlier stage of human evolution” (Lombroso 32). According to his theory, criminals when compared to other individuals in society are more likely to have crooked noses, sloping foreheads, large ears, protruding jaws, and dark skins, ears, and eyes ( 9). His theory was somewhat similar to the theory of phrenology which was developed by physician and anatomist Franz Gall who claimed that a relationship existed between a human’s mental attributes and the shape and size of his head. This description of criminals according to Lombroso indicates racial prejudices to a large extent. This could be seen as unscientific as there are no great volume of data and statistics to verify this claim. If this description was accurate it would be easy for crime fighters to identify criminals. The fact that many crimes go unsolved because in many cases it is difficult to formulate a theory or physical description of the criminal makes this theory unacceptable. He lumps many of the persons ostracized by some societies as criminals. These groups and sub-groups included “women, southern Italians, Africans and other ‘inferior races’; youth, and the lower classes, symbolized by rural bandits and urban revolutionaries” (15). Lombroso’s biological explanation also portrayed his views on women. According to his explanations women were seen as the inferior sex. He felt that women’s inferiority was the reason for them having a lesser number of perpetrators, and female criminal activities were mostly sex related. Like Lombroso, but working in a later era Hoorten stated that burglars and robbers had physical traits that were different from non criminals in the general population. He even went as far as hair colour in stating that burglars usually have blond hair, short heads and non protruding jaws. He further stated that robbers whom he considered to possess more violent traits had long wavy hair, short hair, and broad faces. This theory has well has many short comings. It does not represent the mixture found in a general global population. His focus on just two categories of criminal make his work less credible as there are many criminals who fall outside the categories of robbers and burglars. Another theory that created much debate and interest was the body type theory of William Sheldon. His three body types included endomorphs, mesomorphs and ectomorphs with the mesomorphs who were athletically built being the most likely of the three to become criminals. These theories were only limited to a small sample of the population. Their claims are difficult to be tested and although they claim to have more scientific reasoning, they still lack the type of scientific evidence and measurements that are consistent with credible scientific discoveries. Researchers believe that males born with an extra Y chromosome have the propensity to commit crime. This was as a result of a research done among prison inmates in Britain in 1965. They claim that an extra Y chromosome contributes to violent and aggressive behaviour (Wasserman and Wachbroit 9). These researches and studies do not normally have conclusive results. As researchers rush to pinpoint reasons and causes for criminal behaviour they quickly rely on small samples that are not representational of the human population on a whole. In 1968 two criminals in two different countries were the focus of many criminologists and scientists because they were found to have an extra Y chromosome. One was Richard Speck who was convicted of murdering eight nurses in Chicago, United States of America and the other person was Daniel Hugon who was convicted of murdering a prostitute in France. The lawyers for both men made appeals on the grounds that since they possessed an extra Y chromosome they were unfit to stand trial because of the chromosomal abnormality. In 1993 a research was carried out on male members of a Dutch family and it was discovered that they were carriers of an affected gene MAO. This was believed to be responsible for a number of criminal behaviours. Many individuals and families have been stigmatised and made scapegoats as a result of these biological claims. The eugenic movement which was designed to improve certain races through manipulative breeding focused on families that were believed to be carriers of genes that brought about intellectual disability as well as criminal behaviour. In the same way that much attention was given to the Kallikak family for their inheritance of feeble mindedness, a lot of vigour also went into the description of the Juke family for their predisposition to criminal activities and other antisocial behaviour. These biological explanations help to chart the course of government policies and practices. This may help to shape immigration laws or laws relating to the penal and justice systems. The eugenics movement, for instance, condemned a number of persons who were believed to be carriers of the gene that led them to misery and crime. This was similar to Hitler’s idea of the ‘superior race’. Many of these biological theories pay scant attention to other factors that influence crime. One should not dismiss the influence of biological factors but there are many variables at work that influences criminal behaviour. There should be a balance with environmental, social, cultural and psychological factors. The penal system in modern society is also a factor as persons who are incarcerated in some instances may receive sentencing that does not match the crime. The definition and types of crimes are important issues. According to Tim Hepburn, identifying the boundary between acts that are crimes and acts that are not crimes is often far from straightforward (6). The person who carries out a crime of passion, for example, does not necessarily fit the stereotype of a hardened criminal. Even Lombroso, in his prejudicial descriptions acknowledged that there are different types of criminals. In his book, Criminal Man, he acknowledged that persons who generally commit these types of crimes are honourable persons with no known history of crime (105). This, like many of the other observations have several flaws within the different theories. Those who commit white collar crime for example are also known to be honourable persons in their jobs and family lives. Although the type of crime committed by a middle class individual on the job may look far removed from the crime committed by someone in a deprived community, the fact that the law has been broken should be the variable that unites the two. It is the society at large sometimes that maintains some of these ideas or theories, no matter how ridiculous or immeasurable they may seem at times. Persons of African descent have been stigmatized and stereotyped for a long time. In a relatively recent much publicized case in the USA a black Harvard University professor was arrested just because of his biological make up. The colour of his skin was what prompted the police officers to arrest him while he attempted to enter into his own residence and he possessed sufficient proof. Racial profiling according to Amnesty International USA occurs when race is used by security officials, to any degree, as a basis for criminal suspicion in non suspect specific investigations. It must be acknowledged that in some poor neighbourhoods where immigrants and those with little financial reside, crime rate tend to be higher. Those who are accused of practising racial profiling, however, are seen as spin offs from those biological theories of crime that lay blame on certain persons in the society. Although biological explanation of crime and deviance has been debatable and at times confusing, scientific research is always beneficial in the quest for knowledge about human behaviour. Modern science and technology has resulted in profound changes in biological aspect of crime in the discovery and detection of Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). This discovery is not directly connected to the biological explanation of crime and deviance but, nevertheless, it has helped in correcting some errors by absolving some individuals who have been convicted wrongly. It is hoped that this discovery can help to formulate theories using a more direct approach. In recent times scientists and researchers have been instrumental in showcasing nature versus nurture. Earlier theories have shown that one is not necessarily more important than the other. To this end, scientists have been actively experimenting on twins since they share either half their genes as in normal siblings or all their genes (Wasserman and Wachbroit 6). What is interesting is that even in modern times studies have been showing substantial evidence in psychological and behavioural conditions such as schizophrenia and antisocial behaviour. They have failed to find anything of significance, however, that relates to violent crimes. There are still many questions than answers when it comes to crime and deviance. There is insufficient evidence to explain many of the complexities that still exist. There are many households, for example, where siblings live and grow in the same environmental and psychosocial conditions but one may choose a life of crime while the other refrains from becoming involved. Many criminals make it a habit of engaging in petty crimes even when there is no need to do so. It would seem that many of the causes may be more psychological than biological. These theories as well as biological theories gained popularity in the twentieth century but were not able to be tested on a large scale. Now more than ever, theories and explanations are needed for crime and deviance. In this technological age new types of crimes have developed such as those dealing with computers and the internet. Terrorist acts have also added to the different dimensions. The overpopulation of developing countries and the rate of extreme poverty in some countries could be a good research lab for scholars and scientists to explore the different causes. This, however, should not exclude the other types of crimes that exists in countries or regions that are more developed or in other sections of the society. White collar crime has always confused the theories of the link with crime and undesirables. “Invention of the concept of white collar crime had two desirable consequences: it falsified poverty-pathology theory and it revealed the criminality of the privileged classes and their impunity to the law” (Gottfredson and Hirschi 181). There is little evidence to prove that the different biological explanations over the years have brought the world closer to an explanation on crime and deviance. What these theories have done is portraying different perspectives but none is conclusive or more applicable than the other. The classical theory, on one hand, although was unscientific in its explanation tended to ignore the family and environment in its findings. This was too individualistic in its approach. The biological theory, on the other hand, did not develop measurable and testable variables. It also ignored many of the social and environmental factors that contribute to the cause of crime. Only when the development of theories and explanations that are measurable occurs will scientists and criminologists be able to find possible remedies.   Gottfredson, Michael R, Hirschi Travis. A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990. Lombroso, Cesare et al. Criminal Man. Durham: Duke University Press, 2006. Newburn, Tim. Criminology. Devon:Willan Publishing, 2007.   Wasserman David T., Wachbroit , Robert Samuel. Genetics and criminal behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Read More