Criminal behaviour within societies cannot be explained by one single theory of
crime. Discuss. 30m
“There are crimes of passion and crimes of logic. The boundary between them is not clearly
defined.” ― Albert Camus
Each society perceives crime in their own unique manner, for crime is a complex equation of
human abilities and behaviour. Wether it be lawful or unlawful conduct, theories stand to
support the curiosity of mankind. However the word ‘support’ must be highlighted, for only
the man who committed a heinous enough crime to be prosecuted for it can know the true
explanations of their criminal behaviour. But support is necessary, and in order to examine
the whole picture as to why there is such a view that states criminal behaviour within
societies cannot be explained by one single theory of crime we must ironically assess a
number of theories in the sociological and biological fields. In this essay the theories which
will be examined will be; Biological theories of Raine & Lombroso, tying labelling theory
and drugs into one explanation and social disorganisation theory with broken windows
theory.
Lombroso’s biological positivism emerged around the time of industrialisation and
urbanisation when the new theory of punishment – rehabilitation was beginning to get its
time underneath the spotlight.
Lombroso suggested that criminals could be identified by the way they look and made judgements
about criminals such as having long thin fingers (pickpockets) or sex offenders (glinting eyes).
Furthermore, these ideas were also supported by Sheldon who identified those with an endomorph
body shape were more likely to commit crimes. Both theories were similarly criticised in that the
authors methods were lacking in scientific measurements and that neither took into account external
reasons such as the influence of poverty on body shape or stereotypes in the criminal justice
systems. Overall, these “traditional” biological theories do not constitute a compelling single theory
of criminal behaviour. In contrast however there are modern proponents of biological theories who
make links to sociological factors triggering inappropriate and often criminal responses to external
circumstances. Adrian Raine identified that the brain scans of murderers showed a lack of activity in
the pre-frontal cortex which helps us to evaluate actions and consequences and decide whether
“fight or flight” is an appropriate response. Similar to Raine’s work in the UK and US Professor Jari
Tiihonen in Finland linked offending behaviour to biological make-up in terms of genetics. Tiihonen
identified a “warrior gene” which made offenders 13 times more likely to commit violent crimes, and
leading some to conclude that people are born criminal. However, he also noted the significant
influence of drugs and alcohol in these violent offenders suggesting a link between biological and
sociological factors. Although Raine and Tiihonen’s work looked at different factors, both concluded
this link between biological and social factors. The impact of this research was huge in that defence
lawyers immediately put it to the test in court citing these biological factors as reasons why crimes
had been committed and that it was out of the control of the individual. In conclusion, in today’s
society these traditional theories of Lombroso and Sheldon are insignificant in the weight they carry
in explaining criminal behaviour. However modern biological theories such as those of Raine and
Tiihonen where links are made between biology and external sociological factors such are much
more significant in current criminology. The idea that sociological factors can trigger reactions in the
brains and biology of some individuals is more compelling than traditional biological theories of
identifying a criminal by their looks, which have been largely discredited due to questionable
methodology.
crime. Discuss. 30m
“There are crimes of passion and crimes of logic. The boundary between them is not clearly
defined.” ― Albert Camus
Each society perceives crime in their own unique manner, for crime is a complex equation of
human abilities and behaviour. Wether it be lawful or unlawful conduct, theories stand to
support the curiosity of mankind. However the word ‘support’ must be highlighted, for only
the man who committed a heinous enough crime to be prosecuted for it can know the true
explanations of their criminal behaviour. But support is necessary, and in order to examine
the whole picture as to why there is such a view that states criminal behaviour within
societies cannot be explained by one single theory of crime we must ironically assess a
number of theories in the sociological and biological fields. In this essay the theories which
will be examined will be; Biological theories of Raine & Lombroso, tying labelling theory
and drugs into one explanation and social disorganisation theory with broken windows
theory.
Lombroso’s biological positivism emerged around the time of industrialisation and
urbanisation when the new theory of punishment – rehabilitation was beginning to get its
time underneath the spotlight.
Lombroso suggested that criminals could be identified by the way they look and made judgements
about criminals such as having long thin fingers (pickpockets) or sex offenders (glinting eyes).
Furthermore, these ideas were also supported by Sheldon who identified those with an endomorph
body shape were more likely to commit crimes. Both theories were similarly criticised in that the
authors methods were lacking in scientific measurements and that neither took into account external
reasons such as the influence of poverty on body shape or stereotypes in the criminal justice
systems. Overall, these “traditional” biological theories do not constitute a compelling single theory
of criminal behaviour. In contrast however there are modern proponents of biological theories who
make links to sociological factors triggering inappropriate and often criminal responses to external
circumstances. Adrian Raine identified that the brain scans of murderers showed a lack of activity in
the pre-frontal cortex which helps us to evaluate actions and consequences and decide whether
“fight or flight” is an appropriate response. Similar to Raine’s work in the UK and US Professor Jari
Tiihonen in Finland linked offending behaviour to biological make-up in terms of genetics. Tiihonen
identified a “warrior gene” which made offenders 13 times more likely to commit violent crimes, and
leading some to conclude that people are born criminal. However, he also noted the significant
influence of drugs and alcohol in these violent offenders suggesting a link between biological and
sociological factors. Although Raine and Tiihonen’s work looked at different factors, both concluded
this link between biological and social factors. The impact of this research was huge in that defence
lawyers immediately put it to the test in court citing these biological factors as reasons why crimes
had been committed and that it was out of the control of the individual. In conclusion, in today’s
society these traditional theories of Lombroso and Sheldon are insignificant in the weight they carry
in explaining criminal behaviour. However modern biological theories such as those of Raine and
Tiihonen where links are made between biology and external sociological factors such are much
more significant in current criminology. The idea that sociological factors can trigger reactions in the
brains and biology of some individuals is more compelling than traditional biological theories of
identifying a criminal by their looks, which have been largely discredited due to questionable
methodology.
