Class 3: Early Explanations of Criminal Behaviour
SOCI 2450 Crime and Society
Class 3: Early Explanations of Criminal Behaviour
Date: 18-September-2025
Location: Ottawa-Gatineau
Primitive Explanations of Criminal Behaviour
Spiritual explanations:
Rooted in the belief of evil spirits residing within individuals.
Influence of Judeo-Christian religious beliefs in Western contexts.
Concepts of temptation and possession were prevalent.
Free will is often described as informed by individual weaknesses against the Devil’s temptations.
The dire conditions of individuals are attributed to their moral failings.
Possession by evil spirits necessitated extreme responses.
Religion served as a tool for social control, especially as social issues grew.
Shift from material causes for criminal behaviour to spiritual interpretations (blaming the Devil).
The elite class was perceived as capable of cleansing society of evil spirits, while simultaneously scapegoating those in rebellion against them.
Witch trials were viewed as battles of good versus evil, with accused witches serving as scapegoats.
The Classical School of Criminology
The Enlightenment as a pivotal turning point:
Represents a move away from religious reasoning toward rationalistic approaches.
Define criminals as ‘free,’ ‘rational,’ and reflective entities capable of calculation.
Emphasis on individual rights and the notion of the social contract.
Discussion of punishment being proportional to the crime committed; key thinker: Cesare Beccaria.
Critique of the absence of due process and the inhuman nature of punishment; laws seen as barbaric.
Crime discussed in relation to its causes rather than merely as acts.
Distinction between self-interested offenders and those moved by possession or temptation.
Core principle: “The punishment should fit the crime.”
Recognizes dual roles of punishment: deterring crime while also serving as retribution.
The ideal of swift and certain punishment is highlighted.
Advocated for a system of checks and balances concerning state and judiciary powers.
Separation of powers emphasized: lawmakers and law enforcers must be distinct entities to ensure equality under the law.
Assessment of the Classical School
Positive contributions:
Establishment of due process
Recognition of freedoms and rights of the accused
Promotion of equality before the law
Enabling the separation of state and judiciary powers
Criticism:
Overlooks aggravating and mitigating factors of crimes.
Adoption of a one-size-fits-all methodology, leading to potential injustices.
Deterrence viewed as ineffective in specific instances (i.e., petty crimes, lengthy justice processes).
Rationality and true freedom questioned (e.g., effects of socio-economic disparities).
Emergence of neo-classicism focusing on understanding individual contexts of offenses.
The Statistical School of Criminology
Crime analyzed as the product of intersecting social-demographic factors.
Emphasis on the belief that scientific methods can alter human behaviour.
Focus on objective, empirical data as the basis for methods and solutions.
Shift from individual-centric views to a societal perspective, including considerations of geography, health, education, and income.
Discussed the progression and trajectories of criminal careers, emphasizing that social structures play a crucial role in stabilizing crime rates.
Recognition that social circumstances and external forces account for crime phenomena.
Limited success: The focus eventually reverted to individual biology.
The Positive School of Criminology
Overview:
Suggested that crime results from human biology that individuals cannot control (influenced by Lombroso).
Incorporates insights from evolutionary biology, later broadening to consider social determinants.
Criminal behavior could be quantitatively observed and isolated from others.
Despite being largely discredited, it significantly influenced the discourse by refocusing attention on the individual.
Responses to crime were heavily influenced by the scientific climate of the Enlightenment (notably, Charles Darwin).
Concept of atavism:
Describes criminals as being differentially evolved, corresponding to inferior moral and physical states.
Justified social ostracism or removal of criminals from society.
Traits associated with criminality were empirically quantified (e.g. Vilella).
Instances existed where criminals were dehumanized and regarded as lesser beings.
The Positive School of Criminology (cont’d)
Atavism elaborated:
Criminality viewed as a regression in evolutionary terms.
Concept of stigmata: physical characteristics that manifest criminal traits—these traits seen as common among offenders.
Various forms of criminals identified (e.g., epileptics, passion criminals, criminaloids).
Major contributions included scientific insights into the origins of criminal behaviour.
Notion that punishment should be tailored to individual circumstances aligned with the biological understanding of individuals’ predispositions.
The perspective endorsed the belief that biological factors, rather than the morality of the individual, determined behavior—a viewpoint which informed penal policy.
Biological Theories of Crime
Criticism of Lombroso:
Scholars like G.B. Griffiths and Charles Goring challenged Lombroso’s views, noting no consistent observable differences between criminals and non-criminals.
Investigated relationships between criminality and IQ; though methods improved scientifically, they still featured faults (e.g., sampling errors).
Ernest A. Hooton reintroduced biological perspectives with findings from a substantial cohort of criminals vs. non-criminals, which offered partial support for Lombroso’s views.
Ideas inspired the eugenics movement, advocating for complete segregation of offenders in a sterilized environment.
William Sheldon’s contributions: Proposed a biological link through body types, suggesting mesomorphs (muscular individuals) are more prone to criminal behaviour (as referenced in Pawn Stars, a History channel program).
Biological Theories of Crime (cont’d)
Research sought to establish connections between intelligence and criminal behaviour.
Henry Goddard’s study: focused on the differences between legitimate and illegitimate children, neglecting social influences on individual development.
Observed that a substantial proportion of prisoners (70%) scored below the mental age of 12 on IQ tests.
Noted a correlation between low IQ and criminality.
Proposed solutions involved isolating and eliminating criminals through eugenic means.
Ethical implications for justice:
Failure to understand the consequences of crime was stressed.
Eugenics laws based on IQ data persisted in Alberta until 1972.
The case study of Leilani Muir and the documentary Surviving Eugenics (2015) highlight eugenics controversies.
Overall takeaway: The relationship between biological factors and criminal behaviour is tenuous; relying on weak scientific foundations, tends to disregard cultural contexts and societal definitions of crime, focusing predominantly on mechanisms of social control.
Psychological Theories of Criminal Behaviour
Psychology examines the mental processes influential on behaviour.
Foundations of psychological theories assume an offender deficit: certain inherent shortcomings exist among those who offend.
Identified traits:
Criminal individuals are presumed to have distinct psychological traits that separate them from non-offenders.
Focus is placed on personality characteristics, although this could lead to a one-dimensional view of criminality that overlooks social and environmental factors.
The variables of behavior are highly individualized.
Evolution of focus:
The importance of understanding social and circumstantial factors alongside psychological elements gained traction later.
Community psychology: recognizes the interrelations between individuals, small groups, organizations, and institutions, yielding a more comprehensive perspective.
Psychoanalysis and Criminality
Freudian framework in crime analysis:
Psychoanalysis is represented as a gradual process involving id, ego, and superego.
Freud theorized that the ego and superego evolve in response to environmental pressures and moral guidance.
Crime occurs when the id (which pursues satisfaction) is unchecked due to a faulty superego.
An ineffective superego might result from parental neglect, fostering id-driven impulses.
Conclusively, weakness in the superego can present in varying forms:
Deviance from role models.
Harsh conscience leading to unconscious guilt.
Main conclusions of psychoanalytic perspectives:
Criminality is correlated with psychosis.
Criminal behavior manifests as compulsive cycles seeking punitive outcomes.
Crime may serve as an outlet for suppressed desires and unacceptable wishes.
Hostility might be projected onto external figures or entities.
Psychoanalysis and Criminality (cont’d)
Critiques of psychoanalytic theory:
Subjectivity in interpretation leads to variable conclusions.
Testability of theories presents challenges.
Explanations can become tautological, rendering them circular (aggressive behavior is explained by aggressive impulses; the only evidence of those impulses being the behavior itself).
Questions around the notion of criminals seeking punishment arise (suggesting enjoyment of punitive measures, a proposition largely contested).
Evolutionary Explanations of Crime
Natural selection principles apply:
Psychological mechanisms evolve to address survival challenges.
Fundamental survival needs: food security, shelter, defending oneself, and securing intimate partners.
Over time, biological traits reflective of these needs demonstrate survival adaptations.
The emerging field of forensic evolutionary psychology: posits antisocial behaviour functions as an adaptive strategy for survival.
Gender differences in criminality can be interpreted through the lens of mate competition.
Critiques of evolutionary perspectives:
Arguments of reinforcing social norms.
Overly deterministic viewpoints that simplify complex behaviours.
Difficulty in testing hypotheses empirically.
Moral Development Theories of Crime
Assumption: Abnormal moral development during childhood is critical in forming criminal tendencies.
Key theorists:
Piaget and Kohlberg posited three levels of moral development:
Preconventional: Morality is based on obedience and avoidance of punishment.
Conventional: Moral understanding develops further with social acceptance of values.
Postconventional: Engages in critical assessment and self-reflection on morals.
Gilligan’s critique: Raises concerns about gender inclusivity in moral development frameworks, especially regarding care-oriented values predominant in females versus justice-focused values in males.
The advancement of moral reasoning is postulated to be contingent upon women fulfilling traditionally male societal roles.
Commentary regarding morality emphasizes its limited explanatory nature, proposing emotions like guilt, shame, and empathy as contributory but not causal factors influenced by social and situational conditions.
Personality Theory and Criminal Behaviour
Personality as a variable: Personal characteristics can serve as predictors of criminality (Eysenck’s theory).
Aims to understand delinquency as a natural phenomenon able to be managed rather than purely punitive.
Role of punishment: Intended to elicit discomfort through classical conditioning, aiming to shape conscience.
Dimensions of personality related to delinquency:
Extroversion: Associated with aggression and impulsive behaviours.
Neuroticism: Linked to anxiety, depression, and anger.
Psychoticism: Represents a combination of extroversion, emotional coldness, and antisocial trends.
Strength of Personality Theory: Encompasses dimensions from both social influences and psychological factors.
Social Learning Theory and Crime
Single behavioural focus: Addresses the combination of individual behaviour and environmental influences (Bandura).
Introduces the concept of modelling: where behaviors are learned through observational experiences.
Environments include families, subcultures, and media portrayals of behaviour.
Symbolic dimension studies: Observations are merely correlational; notably, violence depicted in media correlates with desensitization.
Emphasizes prosocial modelling as a protective factor and explores punishment as a deterrent through both specific and general sanctions (legal, social, and self-regulatory).
Operant Conditioning Framework
Behavior management system: Based on a structure of rewards and punishments (B.F. Skinner).
Learning process: Behaviour is learned and modified through external reinforcements.
Focus on environmental feedback: Behaviour adjustment occurs due to consequences of actions.
Implementations, such as the group home model, actively shape individual behaviour through reinforcement mechanisms.
Token economies are introduced as a systematic method for reward and punishment.
Antisocial Personality and Crime
Definition of Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD):
Characterized by behaviours that are socially irresponsible, exploitative, and devoid of guilt (Black, 2025).
Highlights the prevalence of psychopathic traits among prolific offenders characterized by charm and deceit, alongside deficiencies in affective responses (empathy, guilt, emotional depth) and impulsivity coupled with irresponsibility.
Examples of notorious offenders: - References names like Olson, Manson, and Homolka; recalls Vince Li from prior discussions.
Distinction drawn between psychopathy and sociopathy now replaced by APD terminology, defined behaviourally.
Onset of APD in early childhood marked by lying, stealing, followed by aggressive and impulsive behaviours during adolescence.
Prevalence figures: General population APD prevalence is approximately 1-3%, whereas prison rates soar to 75%.
Antisocial Personality and Crime (cont’d)
Criminality patterns: Offenders diagnosed with psychopathy often engage in more frequent, severe, and violent crimes.
Revised Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R): Tool employed to forecast future violent propensity.
Behavioural implications: The absence of conditioning through negative experiences translates to a lack of fear or anxiety; thus, punishment is ineffective.
Observed inverse relationship exists between intelligence and violent actions among psychopaths (Heilbrun).
Important clarification: Not all psychopaths are criminals; many are well-educated, successful individuals capable of evading legal accountability.
Traits suitable for corporate environments: charm, manipulative behaviours, and an ability to adapt in fast-paced contexts reemphasized the lack of accountability often associated with such profiles.
Crime and Mental Disorder
Prevalence insights: Extremely high rates of mental disorders found among the incarcerated, approximately up to 77%.
Co-occurring issues: Mental disorders often intersect with substance use disorders.
Risks discussed: Higher tendencies for suicide and violence among mentally ill offenders are acknowledged.
Evaluating alternatives: Consideration of alternatives to standard prosecution and the necessity for diversion programs is raised.
Increased screening measures: Proposals for heightened mental health screenings before incarceration hinted at challenges inherent in initial contacts with police.
Complex factors involved: Includes the lack of adequate mental health services, homelessness issues, overcrowded hospitals, and jails as influencing factors.
Law enforcement challenges: Police officers are frequently unequipped to handle mental illness in public settings, resulting in disproportionate arrest rates (twice as high among those with mental disorders) versus non-mentally disordered individuals yet exhibiting lower recidivism.
Rethinking incarceration: Is the prison system evolving into a de facto mental health facility? Societal reactions to criminality remain complex against the backdrop of individual predispositions.