Criminology yr 1 - biological theories that explain criminality PDF

Preview

Summary

- Biological theories explaining criminality
- Supporting and opposing theories/research
- Mark: 1st...

Description

Aimee O’Connor Criminology 21713435

Compare and contrast sociological and biological theories that explain criminality. Criminality refers to social behaviour of individuals who violate the established laws of their countries. Difficulties pose when summarising criminality into one singular definition, due to laws not being consistently standardised across different countries, (Taylor, 2015). Criminality holds various motives which both biological and sociological theories attempt to explain. The conjecture of biological theory proposes that some people are ‘born criminals’ who are psychologically detached from non-criminals. Cesare Lombroso (1876) is a key theorist to focus upon when analysing biological explanations of criminality, as he devised the idea that criminality was inherited, (Mason, 2015). Sociological theory on the other hand suggests that crime is moulded by external factors such as the society. Clifford Shaw and Henry. D McKay’s (1942) social disorganisation theory, introduced through the ‘Chicago School’ supports a sociological approach, which is demonstrated through their study of the ways in which ones’ social influences affect their behaviour, (Newburn, 2013). Through instant analysis of biological and sociological theories, it is evident that the theology of nature vs. nature debate is followed, thus using this as a basis for explanations of criminality. Throughout this essay, biological and sociological theories which attempt to explain criminality will be outlined and discussed using relevant theorists and concepts. When analysing the reasons as to why criminality occurs, it’s important to highlight that there’s no one cause of crime. The word ‘crime’ can be rather misleading; it covers every type of law-breaking act, whether it’s a petty crime such as not paying a parking fine or whether the act is murder. Since crime is a social construct, this creates a complex occurrence; changes over time for example are relevant to criminality, as certain laws can change in certain areas. Same-sex marriages have only recently been granted in the UK in 2014; before this however, same-sex marriage was deemed as anomic. Crime varies in different cultures, for example polygamy is illegal in the UK but legal in The Gambia, which is why it’s unjust to recapitulate one singular cause of crime. The oldest known explanation of criminality is demonology. In the pre-enlightenment period, criminal behaviour was thought to be the result of a possessed internal state and the only way to extract these impurities was through torturous acts. Similar to more modern biological explanations of crime, an individual’s environment and other external forces were not taken into consideration. The main focus was on the individual. With modernisation promptly intensifying throughout cultures, modern theories began to challenge the ideas of demonism. The enlightenment period created a new way of living, religious values of crime were rejected and a social contract philosophy was followed. Classical school thinkers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham in the mid-18 th century argued against the idea of a possessed self, and posed the idea of individuals having free will. Bentham termed this as utilitarianism, meaning that behaviour is purposeful. According to Bentham, he believed that we are hedonistic beings that look out for our own self-interest, by calculating the pleasure of pain one will gain from an action to decide whether to do it or not (Hayward, Maruna & Mooney, 2010). The rational choice theory is also somewhat similar to classical theory in its approach towards criminality, as it states that an individual weighs out the pros and cons of an act, therefore they develop rational choice. Pratap (2016) provided strengths for both of these theories in the ways that they consider juvenile and insane persons; these individuals aren’t able to rationally calculate the outcome of an action, therefore they haven’t got the ability to commit crime intentionally. Opposing Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism, sociological functionalist Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) argued that crime is inevitable due to not every member of society being equally devoted to the conscience collective, (The Functionalist Perspective on Crime and Deviance, 2016). Rather than looking at the individual, society is viewed as a collective foundation based upon a set of shared norms and values, known as a value consensus. These norms and values are in place to socialise its members, enabling cooperation with each other so that society’s needs are fulfilled. In relation to criminality, Durkheim argued that crime is a normal aspect of social life as it’s present in all types of

Aimee O’Connor Criminology 21713435 society; crime rates however appear to be higher in more modernised countries such as the UK. All social change begins with some form of deviance; the extent of this depends on the strength of the conscience collective. If it is too strong, there will be a limited amount of deviance along with little progress. Conversely, if there is too little, there will be an increase in deviancy as well as individuality becoming more apparent, concluding in a breakdown of social cohesion, also known as anomie essentially meaning a loss of shared norms and values. A number of functions have been proposed by Durkheim that crime has for society, such as reinforcing the shared norms and values. A second example of a function that crime has is social integration. When particular crimes happen such as murder, the community as a whole integrate to form a sense of belonging and share a similar outlook; the sense of belonging and social cohesion is then strengthened. Durkheim recognised however that with the expansion of industrialisation occurring, for example increased communication and transportation, this resulted in the social change from a mechanical to a more organic solidarity. Durkheim argued that if social change within societies happens too quickly, a breakdown of the norms and values as well as a conscience collective will occur. Although Durkheim offered a much more positive outlook on crime, he fails to distinguish between the different types of crime that occur. Although crime does supply employment, the type of crime may not necessarily be functional for society. Opposing a sociological perspective, a biological approach, similar to early classical theories of crime assumes that criminal and deviant behaviour is a psychological illness caused by uncontrolled aspects specific to individuals. Italian biological positivist Cesare Lombroso is the founder of the Italian school of positivist criminology, granted with the name ‘Father’ of modern criminology. He was the first individual to attempt explanations of crime through the usage of science; this view is proposed by Rafter and Ystehede (2010, p. 264) “Cesare Lombroso occupies an ambiguous and indeed paradoxical place in intellectual history. His 1876 book L’uomo delinquente constituted the world’s first effort to create a science of criminology and thus, by definition, made him the founder of the field.” Drawing on the ideas of Charles Darwin, Lombroso believed that criminality was inherited, and that criminals could be identified through their atavistic stigmata. These individuals have a mental and physical inferiority which causes an inability to learn and follow rules, thus leading to criminal behaviour. Lombroso supports his theory through carrying out a study; he theorised that criminal’s brains are not fully developed, which he illustrated through a review of 90 Italian prisoners and compared them to 400 Italian soldiers. Lombroso determined that the prisoners shared a number of common attributes that the soldiers didn’t have; thieves had an expressive face and small wandering eyes. A rapist was said to have ‘jug ears’. Lombroso summarised that individuals with 5 or more physical characteristics could be labelled as ‘born criminals’. As well as physical characteristics, other traits of born criminals were also introduced including hypersensitivity to pain and touch, tattoos and unemployment. This study was however rejected due to methodological flaws; a number of participants were known to have a different physical appearance to Italians. Also some were severely mentally ill which could have affected their appearance. Goring (1996) also argues that Lombroso’s work is very outdated: “No evidence has emerged confirming the existence of a physical criminal type, such as Lombroso and his disciples have described”. Lombroso later changes his theory of the born criminal and develops a new theory, named ‘classification of criminals’; this involved criminals being divided into three subtypes. Firstly, born criminals were individuals who could be identified through atavistic characteristics. Secondly, Insane, also known as ‘idiots’, ‘imbeciles’ and ‘paranoiacs’. The third classification were given the name criminaloids, individuals that had a problematic childhood, therefore would occasionally display acts of delinquency. Lastly, criminals of passion; these individuals commit crime out of love, anger and honour. Although Lombroso is primarily remembered for his claim that criminal behaviours were inherited, he later argued that environmental factors can play an important role in crime. He speculated that alcoholism, climate changes, and lack of education may contribute to criminality, suggesting that he re-evaluated his

Aimee O’Connor Criminology 21713435 theory of criminality being innate. Although Lombroso’s work has been discredited by many, more modern biological theories still incorporate some of his ideas, however the primary focus is on other characteristics such as a link between testosterone and ones’ IQ. Sociological deviance argues that a criminal is shaped by their personal circumstance and society. With the expansion of secularisation occurring in the early 1920s due to immense social upheaval, the application of natural scientific methods became much more popular, meaning a social rejection of theological and metaphysical methods being used to explain criminality. With the shift from feudalism to capitalism, families and businesses began to move into cities, which is where a class system began to emerge. It has however been argued that city life had a corrupting effect on societies; people felt less ‘bonded’ to each other due to the pressure of urbanisation and industrialisation, therefore a rise of individualism began to emerge. One of the central theories to look at when analysing sociological explanations of crime is The Chicago School with social disorganisation theory. The social disorganisation theory was developed by Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay in the early 1920s and was based on their studies of Chicago. Their overall argument is that delinquency has a social cause that appears to be located in specific geographical surrounding areas. “The theory of social disorganization states a person’s physical and social environments are primarily responsible for the behavioural choices that a person makes.” (Bond, 2015). Following on from the work of Ernest Burgess (1928) and his concentric zone model, Shaw and McKay tested Burgess’ work by using spatial maps to study the residential locations of youths referred to courts within Chicago. They discovered that the rates of crime weren’t dispersed equally and instead concentrated in areas of poverty. Their work supported Burgess’s ecological thesis and they argued that social disorganisation was the result of youth delinquency found in the zone of transition. The theory is still widely used now and continues to dominate when explaining delinquency in regards to the neighbourhood and its characteristics, such as poverty. Like Lombroso, later theories were still influenced by the work of Darwin, thus creating the name ‘social Darwinism’. According to Newburn (2013, p. 133) ‘’social Darwinists’ believed that a process akin to natural selection, if left largely undisturbed, would result in an increasingly healthy society.” Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton was an established anthropologist whom challenged the idea of natural selection only in animals; he found the question of natural selection in humans a topic which couldn’t be ignored. Galton later introduced the idea of eugenics, essentially meaning ‘well-born’. This supposedly assisted in explaining human behaviour through genetics, consequently suggesting that ones’ failure in life were allegedly transmitted from older generations. The theory was used to allegedly express the superiority of white European race. The study of eugenics became increasingly popular in the US; Katz and Abel (1984) proposed that the primary characteristics identified with individual behaviour and failure was ‘feeble-mindedness’, which was hypothetically linked with pauperism, promiscuity and criminality, (Newburn, 2013). Eugenics is now considered as racist and nativist; although the concept of the theory does hold some realism, eugenics could lead to further social divisions within society. A study on identical twins was conducted based on the idea that genetics determine whether or not a person is criminal. The study indicated that genetic structure is not the solitary cause of crime and criminal behaviour. (Criminal Justice, no date) To sum up, it can be suggested that no one theory can conclusively summarise an explanation for criminality. Biological theories focus on internal factors such as genetics. Lombroso’s theory of criminality has stimulated much of the contemporary theories on crime, however the focus on the individual isn’t as resilient. Although Lombroso was adamant that criminals could be distinguished by their atavistic features, his study did fail to obtain a representable control group, resulting in flawed forms of analysis. Sociological explanations on the other hand attempt to explain crime with

the focus primarily on ones’ environmental surroundings and how this can have an impact on behaviour. Shaw and McKay’s work has been exceedingly influential on contemporary

Aimee O’Connor Criminology 21713435

sociologists since evidence does support that an individual’s external factors shape the likelihood that they will be involved in a criminal act. Having said this, it must be noted that this theory cannot account for groups and individuals living in the same area, who are crimefree. Both biological and sociological theories attempt to explain criminality and present advantages as well as disadvantages; each theory provides a practical assessment of criminality which writers continue using today.

Aimee O’Connor Criminology 21713435

Reference list 



  

   



 

Bond, M. (2015). ‘Criminology: Social Disorganization Theory Explained.’, Law and Government, Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/criminology-socialdisorganization-theory-explained-mark-bond (Accessed: 23 December 2017 Criminal Justice (no date) Biological Theories of Crime. Available at: http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/criminology/theories/biologicaltheories-of-crime/15/ (Accessed: 29 December 2017) Ellwood, C. (1912). ‘Lombroso’s Theory of Crime.’ Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 2(5), pp. 717. Hayward, K., Maruna, S. and Mooney, J. (2010). Fifty Key Thinkers in Criminology. United Kingdom: Routledge. Mason, E. (2015) ‘The ‘born criminal’? Lombroso and the origins of modern criminology’, History Extra, Available at: http://www.historyextra.com/article/feature/born-criminal-lombroso-originsmodern-criminology (Accessed: 2 January 2018) Newburn, T. (2013) Criminology. Abingdon: Routledge. Edition 2. Newburn, T. (2013) Criminology. Abingdon: Routledge. Edition 2. Newburn, T. (2013) Criminology. Abingdon: Routledge. Edition 2. Pratap, A. (2016) Important Theories in criminology. Available at: https://www.cheshnotes.com/2016/12/theories-in-criminology/ (Accessed 4 January 2018). Rafter, N. and Ystehede, P. (2010). ‘Here Be Dragons: Lombroso, The Gothic, And Social Control’, in Deflem, M. (ed.) Popular Culture, Crime and Social Control. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 264. Taylor, S. (2015) Crime and Criminality: A Multidisciplinary Approach. New York: Routledge. The Functionalist Perspective On Crime and Deviance (2016) Available at: https://revisesociology.com/2016/04/03/functionalist-explanations-of-deviance/ (Accessed: 7 January 2018)...