4.8 • +11k Ratings
Save
Print
Edit
Why a person commits a crime is controversial, and many psychologists have theorised about the possible biological and psychological causes of criminals’ decision making. Is it because of biology? Are criminals helpless because they listen to their genes? Or is it because of a person’s upbringing?
Firstly, let us cover the definition of a biological theory of crime.
Biological theories of crime causation assume a person’s biological characteristics predetermine crime. Although psychological explanations of crime have largely moved away from this, biological explanations still have a solid basis in the history of forensic psychology.
The theories that discuss the origin of crime and the influences on a person’s decision to commit a crime include classical, biological, sociological, interactionist and psychodynamic approaches.
DNA, Flaticon
There are some important theories that we will cover in the context of biological explanations/theories of crime. These include the physical characteristics of a ‘criminal’, the genetic basis of crime, and the neural explanation of crime.
One of the oldest biological explanations for crime is the atavistic form. In 1876, Cesare Lombroso proposed that criminals are primitive and genetically different from law-abiding citizens. Not only that, criminals look different, according to Lombroso.
Lombroso’s atavistic form - StudySmarter. Made in Canva.
Lombroso wanted to find out if there were common characteristics that could be used to identify these different individuals. He examined the physical characteristics of criminals and found that they had primitive features, in particular:
He also suggested these features are more pronounced in different types of criminals (for example, a thief may have small, quick eyes that take in the scene and tend to wander off, and a murderer may have bloodshot eyes).
More recently, psychologists have identified genes that they believe make a person prone to crime. This genetic predisposition and environmental factors make them susceptible and lead to someone becoming a criminal. Scientists have identified several genes they believe may be involved:
The MAOA gene (controls dopamine and serotonin and has been linked to aggressive behaviour).
CDH13 (linked to substance abuse and attention deficit disorder).
Genetic and neural explanations of offending behaviour - StudySmarter. Made in Canva.
Psychologists also cite differences in brain function as an explanation for criminal behaviour. Specifically, criminals have decreased activity in the prefrontal cortex, which regulates emotions.
They also have difficulty empathising with others. Unlike neurotypical people, criminals with antisocial personality disorder cannot naturally empathise with others, but they can when prompted.
The neurons that are activated when they are asked to empathise (or copy a behaviour) are known as mirror neurons. This means that criminals are much less likely to feel empathy for the victims of their crimes.
Neural explanations usually focus on brain dysfunction as the cause of criminal behaviour.
Consider the study by Raine et al. (1997), where, in the brains of 41 murderers, there were observable abnormalities in the prefrontal cortex, the corpus callosum, and asymmetrical activity in the hemispheres.
One of the best ways to study the effects of genes on a person’s behaviour is to analyse monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins.MZ twins share 100% of their DNA. Therefore, if we want to determine the influence of the environment on a person, we can study twins.
Twins, Flaticon
Adoption studies are also a great source of information because they show the influence of biological and psychological explanations on behaviour. We can essentially ask if the parents are to blame, the environment, or if a person’s genes are at play.
For an example of adoption studies showing biological relationships, see Mednick et al. (1984). Here, a genetic correlation was found between the delinquency rates of adopted children and their biological parents (although concordance rates were low, so we can generally assume that the biological explanation is not the only one at play here).
Let’s evaluate the biological theories discussed above.
In regards to Lombroso’s theory and physical characteristics:
When Lombroso first highlighted the role of the physical characteristics of crime, he lent scientific credibility to the role of biology in criminology. Using empirical evidence, he identified a scientific area of criminology that could be further investigated.
Some argue that the work here led to the basis used in offender profiling techniques we use today, providing a point of research for further areas of study to develop from. This also highlighted how a criminal’s past and upbringing, including their criminal records, could be used to identify their future behaviours.
In regards to the genetic role:
Research supports the theory, as established in Mednick et al. (1984). One great strength of adoption studies is that it helps us identify and rule out the environment as an influence, which some twin studies cannot.
Studies have also linked the genetic origins of aggression and the genetic basis to crime, suggesting it can lead to offending behaviours, further supporting the links.
In regards to neural explanations:
Like the research in the genetic role in offending behaviour, research supports the theory, as seen in Raine et al. (1997) on their study on the brain abnormalities in murderers. This again increases the scientific credibility of the theories.
Overall, biological theories of crime show strengths in that:
The studies cited often provide clear proof of some correlation or connection between biological factors and offending behaviours.
Overall, biological theories are observable and measurable, which increases the scientific credibility of the research on the topic.
In regards to Lombroso’s theory and physical characteristics:
Lombroso highlighted these features as common in criminal subjects. However, he did not compare them to a non-criminal control group, so he cannot confidently say these features are inherent only in criminals.
He also ignored other factors that may have affected these physical traits, such as the presence of psychological or mental disorders that present physically in participants.
It also unfairly attributes these features to criminal behaviour, which suggests all criminals have these physical traits. Those who have not committed a crime may be unfairly judged based on this. It is a reductionist argument.
In regards to the genetic role:
When using studies, especially in twins, the concordance rate of criminal behaviour should be 100%, yet this isn’t the case. This outright shows biological factors are not the only factor in offending behaviours and crime.
Consider Christiansen (1977): in monozygotic twins, there was a concordance rate for males of 35% for criminal behaviour and 21% for females for criminal behaviour. These rates are low, indicating that biological factors are less important than we may suspect, and environmental factors are more important than we first thought.
In regards to neural explanations:
Despite Raine et al. (1997) highlighting abnormalities in the brains of criminals, they did not establish if this was a cause or result of the criminal behaviour or something else entirely unrelated. There is only a correlation.
The neural explanation is also very simplistic and somewhat reductionist as well. It does not consider the environmental influences that may affect a person’s behaviour or their life situations which may directly encourage or necessitate criminal behaviours. Higher levels of neurotransmitters such as testosterone do not always result in criminal behaviour.
In regards to biological theories of crime overall:
Biological explanations suffer from being reductionist in that they often ignore or do not fully acknowledge other factors and instead rely too heavily on the role of biological factors.
They are also deterministic.
Research into this field’s implications on how our judicial and punishment system works requires a sensitive approach to this subject area, as ethical issues can arise from statements such as ‘all criminals have a prominent brow bone’, as we have discussed above.
The theories which discuss the origin of crime and what can influence a person’s decision to commit a crime include classical, biological, sociological, interactionist and psychodynamic approaches.
Neural factors such as reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex, mirror neurons and genetic factors such as the MAOA and CDH13 genes are all biological factors of crime.
Lombroso believed a criminal has an atavistic form; they have primitive, identifiable features common for a criminal.
Biological psychology sees behaviour resulting from genetic, biological and neural characteristics.
That criminals are genetically and neurally predisposed to crime. When they interact with the environment, they can make someone commit the crime.
That criminals are genetically and neurally predisposed to crime which when they interact with the environment can make someone commit the crime.
60%
of the users don't pass the Biological Theories of Crime quiz! Will you pass the quiz?
Start Quiz
Be perfectly prepared on time with an individual plan.
Test your knowledge with gamified quizzes.
Create and find flashcards in record time.
Create beautiful notes faster than ever before.
Have all your study materials in one place.
Upload unlimited documents and save them online.
Identify your study strength and weaknesses.
Set individual study goals and earn points reaching them.
Stop procrastinating with our study reminders.
Earn points, unlock badges and level up while studying.
Create flashcards in notes completely automatically.
Create the most beautiful study materials using our templates.
Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.
