3. biological explanation: historical approach

who came up with the historical approach

lombroso

how did lombroso view offenders

as lacking evolutionary development

• their savage and untamed nature meant they would find it impossible to adjust to the demands of civilised society and would inevitably turn to crime

• he saw offending behaviour as a natural tendency rooted in the genes of those who engage in it

what is atavistic form

a biological approach to offending that attributes criminal activity to the fact that offenders are genetic throwbacks or a primitive subspecies ill-suited to conforming to the rules of modern society

• such individuals are distinguishable by particular facial and cranial characteristics

what did lombroso argue about the atavistic form

the offender subtype could be identified as being in possession of particular physiological ‘markers’ that were linked to particular types of offence

characteristics

• cranial - narrow and sloping brow, strong prominent jaw, high cheekbones and facial asymmetry

• other physiological ones - dark skin and extra toes, nipples or fingers

• other aspects - insensitivity to pain, use of slang, tattoos and unemployment

offender types

• murderers - bloodshot eyes, curly hair and long ears

• sexual deviants - glinting eyes, swollen, fleshy lips and projecting ears

• fraudsters - thin lips

lombrosos research

• examined the facial and cranial features of hundreds of italian convicts, both living and dead, and concluded there was an ‘atavistic form’ indicative of criminality

• examined skulls of 383 dead convicts and 3839 living ones

• concluded 40% of criminal acts are committed by people with atavistic characteristics

evaluation

1. lombrosos legacy (& counterpoint)

2. contradictory evidence

3. poor control

lombrosos legacy

• made an important contribution to the development of modern criminology

• lombroso introduced a scientific approach to studying crime and is credited with coining the term criminology - before, crime explanations were largely moralistic or religious so he helped shift criminology towards empirical research and classification

• involved his study of 383 dead and 3839 living convicts

• shows its had lasting value by laying the foundations for modern criminological research

counterpoint

• it reflects scientific racism and social bias

• his work suggested people of african descent were more likely to be offenders reflecting 19th century eugenic attitudes - claims are now ethnocentric and discriminatory as they confuse cultural differences with biological inferiority

• suggests conclusions were influenced by personal prejudice rather than objective science so his theory lacks credibility and raises serious ethical concerns

contradictory evidence

• research evidence contradicts the link between atavistic traits and criminality

• goring compared 3000 offenders with 3000 non-offenders and found no evidence that criminals had distinctive physical features - challenges claim criminals can be biologically distinguished based on physical appearance

• thus core assumption of the atavistic form is undermined by empirical evidence

poor control

• his research lacked scientific control, reducing its validity

• he failed to use a control group and did not account for CVs - factors like unemployment or poor education are strongly linked to crime, meaning criminal behaviour may be socially caused rather than biologically determined

• suggests his conclusions were oversimplified and do not meet modern scientific standards