Pathology (2) Pathological Thinking on Crime and Deviance

Cesare Lombroso, an Italian physician, studied the physical characteristics of criminals.
His daughter, Gina Lombroso Ferrero, quoted his insight upon seeing the skull of serial killer Vilella: criminals exhibit characteristics of primitive savages and carnivores.
Lombroso identified features like large jaws, strong canines, and prominent zygomae (cheekbones) as signs of atavism, a reversion to a former evolutionary state.

Lombroso's work marked the beginning of the pathological approach to understanding crime and deviance.
He believed that criminal tendencies originated in the body, suggesting criminals were evolutionary throwbacks (atavists).
Gina Lombroso Ferrero defended her father's work postmortem, emphasizing the school's focus on the application of the law rather than the offender.
The classical school of jurisprudence assumes criminals are like normal people with intelligence and feelings, whereas the positive/modern school see criminals as physically and psychically different from normal individuals.
Lombroso described robbers as having small, quick-moving eyes, bushy connected eyebrows, twisted snub noses, and receding beards and foreheads.

Lombroso's work coincided with the rise of biology in academia, influenced by Darwin's theory of evolution (1859).
Lombroso believed that "criminal man" inherited genes from a violent, devious, and psychopathic era.
Different parts of the brain were thought to control behavior, with specific areas responsible for traits like domesticity, intelligence, and morality.
Criminality could supposedly be identified through physical attributes, particularly the skull.

Gina Lombroso Ferrero defended her father by arguing that the classical school focused on laws for a fictitious average person, while her father focused on individual differences.
She suggested that punishments should be tailored to the individual, recognizing that some require more deterrence than others.
Criminal man, or natural-born killers, were described as a third of all criminals, less sensible, less intelligent, with greater tactile sensibility, less taste, smell, and hearing. They were also described as vain, morally stunted, revengeful, and rarely repentant.

Despite being discredited, Lombroso introduced scientific and multicausal analysis to the study of deviance and highlighted biology's potential role.
He argued that normal people wouldn't need to be punished for murder because they would not likely do it again.
He advocated for punishment fitting the criminal rather than the crime, which is somewhat included in our hybrid criminal justice system today.

The pathological perspective, like the demonic, focuses on the body. While the demonic perspective endorsed torture, the pathological approach suggested invasive treatments like surgery and electroconvulsive therapy.
Both demonic and pathological perspectives can lead to arbitrary punishment. The demonic, due to social status, and the pathological, due to invasive treatments.
Both perspectives emphasize control over the actor rather than the act itself.

The demonic perspective would point to religious texts like Sodom and Gomorrah, look for witch's marks, and attribute it to temptation or possession, suggesting severe punishments.
The classical perspective would view it as a rational choice, with Jeremy Bentham arguing that consensual same-sex relationships are harmless and should not be considered deviant.
The pathological perspective would attribute it to biology or genes, potentially suggesting treatments like surgery, drugs, or counseling.

Lombroso's research was empirically flawed, with sloppy measurements and manipulation of data.
Statistical techniques were not refined until the early 1900s. Many so-called stigmata of criminal man were simply social. (tattoo)

Dugdale's study of the Jukes family in 1877 suggested that crime and poverty were inherited, based on an analysis of 709 family members over 150 years.
The study found high rates of welfare recipients, convicted criminals, murderers, thieves, and prostitutes among the Jukes.
Critics like Samuel Hopkins Adams pointed out similar rates of deviance in respectable families like the Jonathan Edwards family.

Goddard's 1912 study of the Kallikaks family compared the descendants of a soldier's affair with a "feeble-minded" barmaid to those from his marriage to a "good girl."
The study claimed that the feeble-minded side had deviant offspring, while the good girl side had conformist offspring.
The research was criticized for being subjective and biased against the poor.

Sigmund Freud, a key figure in the pathological perspective, proposed that the personality consists of the id (instinctual energies), superego (internalized norms), and ego (balancing act).
An overly strong id can lead to crime due to impulsiveness, while an overly developed superego can stifle personal expression.
Freud compared the mind to an iceberg, with the unconscious id submerged and the conscious ego and superego partly visible.
If the id is too strong while the superego is too weak, a person is more likely to commit crimes.

Foe criticized the pathological approach for promising much but delivering little, methodological errors, and potential for political repression.
Foe questions why one cannot accept different people having different preferences and choices, and questions the role of free choice in the pathological perspective.
They question why we get so concerned with victimless crimes.

Turner and Edgely (1983) questioned whether drugcraft had replaced witchcraft, noting that we readily accept medical advice despite flawed research in crime and deviance.
Just because a drug makes someone feel better doesn't necessarily mean we understand the cause of their malady.
Ritalin overprescription and risks associated with antidepressants raise concerns.

Turner and Edgeley argued that psychologists often reverse the causal chain, with brain chemistry affecting the mind and behavior, but also the reverse being possible.
A homeless person's brain chemistry may be affected by their living conditions, leading to unhappiness or depression.
Much of the evidence offered by pathologists for criminal and deviant conduct could be social in origin.

Turner and Edgeley offer acerbic rheteric:
- Thomas Sass said, "If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia."
- It is not hearing voices that constitutes disease, it's whose voices are being heard.
They rhetorically ask if there are chemical reasons for being a Republican or Democrat, Catholic or Protestant.
Lower socioeconomic status and marital status are related to schizophrenia.
Why is schizophrenia three times more likely in single than in married people? (Does marriage alter biochemistry?)

The treatments offered by psychologists, psychiatrists, and medical doctors may not be solutions to our problems.
Biological problems may have sociological causes and should not be the only focus.
We must be careful of too easily accepting their claims for the causes of crime and deviance.
Pathologists resort to interpretations of physiology that can be troubling to society.
Biological characteristics are not always independent causal forces.
Sometimes pathologists reverse the causal chain.