Criminology can be defined as the scientific study of criminal behavior. This entails the nature of the criminal behavior, its extent, causes, and control measures that can be put in place to control it. Criminal behavior can be found in individuals and the society at large. Criminology combines a multiple of disciplines especially in behavioral sciences in its approach to the study of criminal activities. Sociology, Psychology, and Law are the main fields from which criminology is based. Focus in criminology is placed on incidences, forms, causes, and the consequences of criminal activities. Crime is an undesirable thing in all societies. Sociologists regard crime as a social disease. Many theories have come up to explain criminal behavior among human beings.
The theoretical framework in criminology ranges from the classical and rational theories, sociological theories, psychological theories, and the biological theories. Of great interest are the biological theories which assert that criminal behavior emanates from biological processes in the body of the individual. Proponents of these theories hold that criminals differ from non-criminals in biological and physiological make up. When individuals with particular traits interact with the environment, they are likely to be criminals as opposed to the others without such traits. This argument leads to the question as to whether some criminals are born criminal or not. This paper is going to look at the extent to which the biological concept to criminal behavior can be supported by empirical evidence.
Crime as a biological concept
Criminals have always been looked at as unsociable beings and have been subjected to public lynching long before the advent of the new justice system which includes prisons. It was thought that evil spirits were pushing them to commit crime and that the only way to free the society of these evil spirits was by killing the criminals. Crime was also thought to be a sickness or illness that individual criminals suffered from resulting from biological disorder (Eaglehunter, 2008).
Biological theories of crime are associated with the Italian criminologist known as Cesare Lombroso who in 1890s claimed that persistent criminality was associated with atavism, which was a reversion to an archaic stage of human development. He studied the features of the skulls and the facial appearances of the criminals before making his conclusions. Scholars of the mid 20th century led by William Sheldon came up with types of individuals associating them with criminal behavior. He referred to the athletic individuals as mesomorphs and said that they are more likely to commit crime in comparison to the other types. The other types of individuals were the tall and thin ectomorphs, and the soft and rounded endomorphs (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2009).
Although no much attention has been given to these earlier biological theories, research into this area has come up with intriguing findings. Recent research by Harvard professors has it that, no individual is born a criminal but many are born with specific traits that incline them to criminal activities. They argue that offenders have a difference in physique, intelligence, and personality when compared to non-offenders (Leo, Castronovo, 1985). These scholars insinuated that crime was hereditary and therefore capable of running through families. To these scholars, criminals exhibit similar characteristics which includes low IQ scores and that they appear to be more muscular. They said that children born of criminal parents had a higher chance of turning into criminals in comparison to those born from non-criminal parents.
During the 1960s, research by biologists revealed several genetic abnormalities in the human cells. For instance, female and male chromosomes in normal instances are known to be XX and XY respectively. Males are traditionally aggressive and violent, and therefore any abnormality in their genetic formation as in the XYY will mean being as twice as aggressive and violent. Men with the XYY-chromosomes had a higher number in correctional facilities like the prison and mental hospitals, and this suggests how genetics could influence crime. Proponents of the criminal gene, base on the studies carried out on identical twins which showed that such twins had a higher rate of criminal concordance when compared to non-identical twins (Eaglehunter, 2008).
Other studies at the University of Virginia concluded that children might be born criminals. The human genetics experts believed that any defects in the human character including criminal behavior are to be found in the DNA make up of the individual (Masters, 2007). Scientists claim that genetic make-up is solely responsible for the behavioral characteristic human beings posses.
Impacts of the born-criminal attitude
The general conception that criminals are born and not made has led to prejudices and general assumptions that criminals are inherently defective in intellect and morals of the society. To solve such issues of criminality, criminals were to spend the rest of their lives behind bars and subjected to sterilization to prevent them from siring children who will be future criminals in the society. An individual could be confined in an institution for alleged hereditary defectives which was thought to be incurable. The individual might have committed no crime, but basing on the biological and physical characteristics, he was sent to an institution possibly, for life. This was based on what was known as eugenic criminology. The misuse of eugenics had disastrous results as seen in the case of Adolf Hitler who in his efforts to improve the gene pool of the Nazis, resorted to the massacre of the Jews (Rafter, 1998).
Scientists therefore have been promoting their idea of genetic influence on human behavior at the expense of the Romantic notion of the 18th century projected by a French philosopher by the name Jean Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau was of the view that there was no fundamental perversity in the human heart but that, all bad behavior was the outcome of the society itself. A child inheriting traits of personality from the parents is an irrefutable fact however, the child also learns most of the behavioral traits from the environment in which she is raised. Criminal activities are better defined as deviant behavior. Deviance is socially created and therefore can be corrected by addressing the causative agents which are found in the society.
Crime as a social concept
Emile Durkheim is considered as the father of sociology, and in his analysis of the criminal activities, he concluded that social structures have a great influence on human behavior. He believed that crime was a natural behavior and its composition was laid in the many forces that were to be found in the society. His ideas were embraced by the Chicago School of Sociology in the 20th century which focused on the society as the embryonic force of criminal behavior (Gado, 2009). The Chicago School of thought was inspired by the increase in criminal activities in the United States resulting from the effects of the great depression which had changed the political, financial, and social landscape in America. Criminals who were notorious were regarded as heroes in the society as banks, corporations and the state were looked at as the enemies of the people. Criminal activities were often seen as behaviors resulting from the unjustified societal forces (Gado, 2009).
Children are not born criminals and that any criminal behavior they may posses is an expression of failure by the family and the society at large to offer the required social and emotional care to the children. Most of those involved in violent crimes are from troubled home environments in which they are raised. Enough evidence has been put forward to support the assertion that early childhood experiences plays a great role in shaping the character of a majority of people. Those who have been systematically subjected to abuse and denial of loving care have been found to develop neuro-chemical vulnerabilities. This gives the vulnerable children a good ground to be violent because they have experienced such. These children are emotionally subdued and they dont do anything unless it the excitement of pursuing their prey to release the accumulated tension of being victimized (Batmanghelidj, 2008).
Refuting the biological concept
Simple terms of DNA can not be used to infer human behavior. The predispositions might be there but how the individual will shape them is what matters most. Environment has to be incorporated to understand human behavior comprehensively. The case of Jeffrey Dahmer in Milwaukee who was a serial killer can be used as a good example of how biology can be deficient in explaining crime. Jeffrey was brought up by a self-obsessed mother and a largely absentee father. He lacked the parental love and care, leading him to loose humanity. His brother David did not however turn to be a criminal despite sharing in the DNA composition as his brother (Masters, 2007). There are many more examples in which, when put to test, the biological concept has failed to hold.
As much as there can be biological aspects to crime, environment plays a major role in shaping an individuals characters including behavior. Crime is a very complex issue in the society and therefore cannot be handled with a single mind. It is evident that abnormal chromosomes do exist but this cannot solely account for the criminal behavior that we see in our society. Malformations found in the chromosomes are not closely related to criminality and therefore explanations are needed. A development in the intelligent tests has helped mankind to realize that crime cannot be attributed to the biological traits as it was believed by the eugenic criminologists. This led to the weakening of the notion that crime is an innate behavior that an individual was born with, and that he had no control over it. If criminal activity were to a result from biological mal-adaptations, then the criminals will have the right to challenge any sentence meted at them for committing a particular crime. Criminal behavior is best explained by nurture as opposed to nature. Its therefore unjust to label an individual as a criminal basing on his biological traits alone.
The theoretical framework in criminology ranges from the classical and rational theories, sociological theories, psychological theories, and the biological theories. Of great interest are the biological theories which assert that criminal behavior emanates from biological processes in the body of the individual. Proponents of these theories hold that criminals differ from non-criminals in biological and physiological make up. When individuals with particular traits interact with the environment, they are likely to be criminals as opposed to the others without such traits. This argument leads to the question as to whether some criminals are born criminal or not. This paper is going to look at the extent to which the biological concept to criminal behavior can be supported by empirical evidence.
Crime as a biological concept
Criminals have always been looked at as unsociable beings and have been subjected to public lynching long before the advent of the new justice system which includes prisons. It was thought that evil spirits were pushing them to commit crime and that the only way to free the society of these evil spirits was by killing the criminals. Crime was also thought to be a sickness or illness that individual criminals suffered from resulting from biological disorder (Eaglehunter, 2008).
Biological theories of crime are associated with the Italian criminologist known as Cesare Lombroso who in 1890s claimed that persistent criminality was associated with atavism, which was a reversion to an archaic stage of human development. He studied the features of the skulls and the facial appearances of the criminals before making his conclusions. Scholars of the mid 20th century led by William Sheldon came up with types of individuals associating them with criminal behavior. He referred to the athletic individuals as mesomorphs and said that they are more likely to commit crime in comparison to the other types. The other types of individuals were the tall and thin ectomorphs, and the soft and rounded endomorphs (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2009).
Although no much attention has been given to these earlier biological theories, research into this area has come up with intriguing findings. Recent research by Harvard professors has it that, no individual is born a criminal but many are born with specific traits that incline them to criminal activities. They argue that offenders have a difference in physique, intelligence, and personality when compared to non-offenders (Leo, Castronovo, 1985). These scholars insinuated that crime was hereditary and therefore capable of running through families. To these scholars, criminals exhibit similar characteristics which includes low IQ scores and that they appear to be more muscular. They said that children born of criminal parents had a higher chance of turning into criminals in comparison to those born from non-criminal parents.
During the 1960s, research by biologists revealed several genetic abnormalities in the human cells. For instance, female and male chromosomes in normal instances are known to be XX and XY respectively. Males are traditionally aggressive and violent, and therefore any abnormality in their genetic formation as in the XYY will mean being as twice as aggressive and violent. Men with the XYY-chromosomes had a higher number in correctional facilities like the prison and mental hospitals, and this suggests how genetics could influence crime. Proponents of the criminal gene, base on the studies carried out on identical twins which showed that such twins had a higher rate of criminal concordance when compared to non-identical twins (Eaglehunter, 2008).
Other studies at the University of Virginia concluded that children might be born criminals. The human genetics experts believed that any defects in the human character including criminal behavior are to be found in the DNA make up of the individual (Masters, 2007). Scientists claim that genetic make-up is solely responsible for the behavioral characteristic human beings posses.
Impacts of the born-criminal attitude
The general conception that criminals are born and not made has led to prejudices and general assumptions that criminals are inherently defective in intellect and morals of the society. To solve such issues of criminality, criminals were to spend the rest of their lives behind bars and subjected to sterilization to prevent them from siring children who will be future criminals in the society. An individual could be confined in an institution for alleged hereditary defectives which was thought to be incurable. The individual might have committed no crime, but basing on the biological and physical characteristics, he was sent to an institution possibly, for life. This was based on what was known as eugenic criminology. The misuse of eugenics had disastrous results as seen in the case of Adolf Hitler who in his efforts to improve the gene pool of the Nazis, resorted to the massacre of the Jews (Rafter, 1998).
Scientists therefore have been promoting their idea of genetic influence on human behavior at the expense of the Romantic notion of the 18th century projected by a French philosopher by the name Jean Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau was of the view that there was no fundamental perversity in the human heart but that, all bad behavior was the outcome of the society itself. A child inheriting traits of personality from the parents is an irrefutable fact however, the child also learns most of the behavioral traits from the environment in which she is raised. Criminal activities are better defined as deviant behavior. Deviance is socially created and therefore can be corrected by addressing the causative agents which are found in the society.
Crime as a social concept
Emile Durkheim is considered as the father of sociology, and in his analysis of the criminal activities, he concluded that social structures have a great influence on human behavior. He believed that crime was a natural behavior and its composition was laid in the many forces that were to be found in the society. His ideas were embraced by the Chicago School of Sociology in the 20th century which focused on the society as the embryonic force of criminal behavior (Gado, 2009). The Chicago School of thought was inspired by the increase in criminal activities in the United States resulting from the effects of the great depression which had changed the political, financial, and social landscape in America. Criminals who were notorious were regarded as heroes in the society as banks, corporations and the state were looked at as the enemies of the people. Criminal activities were often seen as behaviors resulting from the unjustified societal forces (Gado, 2009).
Children are not born criminals and that any criminal behavior they may posses is an expression of failure by the family and the society at large to offer the required social and emotional care to the children. Most of those involved in violent crimes are from troubled home environments in which they are raised. Enough evidence has been put forward to support the assertion that early childhood experiences plays a great role in shaping the character of a majority of people. Those who have been systematically subjected to abuse and denial of loving care have been found to develop neuro-chemical vulnerabilities. This gives the vulnerable children a good ground to be violent because they have experienced such. These children are emotionally subdued and they dont do anything unless it the excitement of pursuing their prey to release the accumulated tension of being victimized (Batmanghelidj, 2008).
Refuting the biological concept
Simple terms of DNA can not be used to infer human behavior. The predispositions might be there but how the individual will shape them is what matters most. Environment has to be incorporated to understand human behavior comprehensively. The case of Jeffrey Dahmer in Milwaukee who was a serial killer can be used as a good example of how biology can be deficient in explaining crime. Jeffrey was brought up by a self-obsessed mother and a largely absentee father. He lacked the parental love and care, leading him to loose humanity. His brother David did not however turn to be a criminal despite sharing in the DNA composition as his brother (Masters, 2007). There are many more examples in which, when put to test, the biological concept has failed to hold.
As much as there can be biological aspects to crime, environment plays a major role in shaping an individuals characters including behavior. Crime is a very complex issue in the society and therefore cannot be handled with a single mind. It is evident that abnormal chromosomes do exist but this cannot solely account for the criminal behavior that we see in our society. Malformations found in the chromosomes are not closely related to criminality and therefore explanations are needed. A development in the intelligent tests has helped mankind to realize that crime cannot be attributed to the biological traits as it was believed by the eugenic criminologists. This led to the weakening of the notion that crime is an innate behavior that an individual was born with, and that he had no control over it. If criminal activity were to a result from biological mal-adaptations, then the criminals will have the right to challenge any sentence meted at them for committing a particular crime. Criminal behavior is best explained by nurture as opposed to nature. Its therefore unjust to label an individual as a criminal basing on his biological traits alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment