explanations of crime

biological approach to explaining crime

atavistic approach

The atavistic form was created by Lombroso. It sees offenders as a primitive sub species, biologically different to non-criminals and lacking in evolutionary development which leads to them having difficulty adjusting to society’s norms.

• Offending behaviour is rooted in genealogy

• Offenders are distinguishable by atavistic characteristics (predominantly facial and cranial features)

Cranial atavistic markers:

• Narrow, sloping brow

• Strong, prominent jaw

• High cheekbones

• Facial asymmetry

Other features:

• Dark skin, existence of extra toes/fingers/nipples

• Insensitivity to pain, use of criminal slang, tattoo, unemployed

• Murderers: bloodshot eyes, curly hair, long ears

• Sexual deviants: glinting eyes, swollen and fleshy lips, projecting ears

• Fraudsters: thin and reedy lips

Lombroso examined facial and cranial features of 383 dead Italian convicts and 3839 living ones. Concluded 40% of criminal acts could be accounted for by atavistic characteristics

evaluations

• Advantages

  • Lombroso shifted thinking in criminology from a moral discourse to being more scientific, leading to the start of profiling (thinking about criminal’s characteristics), major contributions to criminology

• Disadvantages

  • Ethnocentric — only Italians used

  • Deterministic — saying criminality is decided at birth/part of nature

  • Limited explanation — doesn’t explain all criminality

  • Social sensitivity — Delisi criticised it for having racist undertones, like saying typical African characteristics are characteristics of criminals and eugenicist idea that there are lesser people and genetically superior people

  • Unscientific — criteria is subjective

  • Gender bias — men, limited application

  • No control group = can’t be certain characteristics are unique or could be found in a similar number in any population, less valid and scientific

genetic explanation of crime

• Evidence from twin studies

  • Lange — 13 MZ and 17 DZ where 1 served time in prison

    • 10/13 MZ had twin who was also in prison

    • 2/17 DZ

  • Raine — found 52% concordance rate for MZ compared to 21% DZ

• Brunner et al — DNA of men who claimed to be born criminals, shared a gene that led to abnormally low levels of MAOA

• Tiihonen et al — 900 Finnish offenders, gene abnormalities

  • MAOA linked to aggression

  • CDH13 linked to substance abuse and ADHD

  • Had this combination = 13x more likely to have history of violent behaviour

• Christiansen — 3,500 twins, 35% for MZ and 13% for DZ

MAOA creates an enzyme which ‘mops up’ leftover neurotransmitters such as dopamine and adrenaline, it’s functioning determines how much enzymes we produce and NTS broken down. Dysfunction causes less enzymes which makes the messages sent to brain stronger and more aggressive/less inhibited. Paired with difficult upbringing = criminality

evaluations

• Limited explanation — concordance rates only = influence, not cause, so can’t really explain most behaviour

• Deterministic — genetic predisposition MAOA and CDH13, doesn’t acknowledge free will of person

• Bias — Tiihonen only used Finnish ppts so can’t be generalised to other population

• Research support — Crowe found adopted children with bio parent with crim. record 50% risk of criminal record, adopted whose mother didn’t have a criminal record only had 5% risk

• Lange poor control (MZ/DZ wasn’t based on DNA but guessing) — lack validity. Twin studies small samples and are unique so may not represent population, and same environment

• Mechick study 13,000+ Danish adoptees, when neither bio/adopt parents had conviction. 13% when parents did, 20% when both did 24%. Petty offences

• Brunner syndrome — mutation of MAOA gene made male family members aggressive

• Environmental triggers — physical (sleep deprivation, pollution), social environment (lack of social support, abusive, poverty)