A HISTORICAL APPROACH

~Historical Approach~

→ Lombroso suggested that criminals were ‘genetic throwbacks’ - primitive subspecies who were biologically different from non-criminals

~Biologically Approach~

→ Offenders were seen as lacking evolutionary development, and found it impossible to adjust to the demands of society and therefore turned to crime.

→ He saw offending behaviour as a natural tendency, rooted in the genes of the criminal, suggesting it was innate and therefore an offender shouldn’t be blamed for their actions

~Atavistic Form~

→ Lombroso suggested that there were ‘physiological markers’ linked to particular types of crimes (e.g. long sloping brow, high cheekbones, extra toes, nipples or fingers)

→ He then categorised these characteristics to specific offenders (e.g. murderers have bloodshot eyes, curly hair, thin & reedy lips)

→ Other aspects of criminals include use of slang, tattoos and unemployment

EVALUATION

Research Support:

→ MORE SCIENTIFIC BASIS

  • One strength is that Lombroso is credited with shifting the emphasis n crime research towards a more scientific realm.

  • Prior to Lombroso’s work, criminality was often seen from a religious perspective and was attributed to bad spirits and devil influence.

  • Lombroso’s work, although lacking the scientific rigour of today, was at least an attempt to bring explanations for criminality into the realm of science.

  • He is therefore often referred to as the ‘father of modern criminology’

Conflicting Evidence:

→ CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE

  • One limitation is that evidence contradicts the link between atavism and crime.

  • Goring (1913) set out to establish whether there was anything physically atypical about offenders

  • After conducting a comparison between 3,000 criminals and 3,000 non-criminals, he concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that criminals are a distinct group with unusual physical characteristics.

  • This challenges the idea that offenders can be physically distinguished from the rest of the population and are therefore unlikely to be a subspecies.

→ POOR CONTROL

  • Anther limitation is that Lombroso’s methods of investigation were poorly controlled.

  • Lombroso failed to control important variables within his research. Unlike Goring, he did not compare his offender sample with a non-offending control group.

  • This could have controlled for an assortment of confounding variables that might have equally explained higher crime rates in certain groups of people. For instance, research has demonstrated links between crime and social conditions such as poverty and poor educational outcomes

  • This suggests that Lombroso’s research does not meet modern scientific standards.

→ RACIST

  • A further limitation is that several critics have drawn attention to the distinct racial undertones within Lombroso’s work.

  • Many of the features that Lombroso identified as criminal, such as curly hair, are most likely to be found amongst people of African descent.

  • Wether Lombroso intended this to be the case or not is a matter of debate; though there is little doubt that it is an uncomfortable and controversial aspect of his legacy.