Discuss biological explanations of offending behaviour. (16 marks)
There are three biological explanations of offending behaviour. These include the historical approach
(atavistic form), the genetic explanation, and the neural explanation. The atavistic approach was proposed by
Lombroso (1876) and it is the idea that every offender has atavistic characteristics in common. These
characteristics include having a sloping jaw, high cheek bones and facial asymmetry. When Lombroso
conducted his study, he concluded that 40% of criminal acts could be accounted for by atavistic
characteristics.
However, the atavistic explanation is criticised because of its racial undertones. There is another atavistic
feature that Lombroso identified as bring present in criminals and that is having dark skin and curly hair.
These features are more likely to be found amongst people of African descent. This means that his ideas
may reflect racist ideas which were widely held in the late 19th century, which had no validity then and
shows great issues with temporal validity now.
The genetic explanation of crime argues that there is an inheritance of a gene/combination of genes that
determine whether an individual will show criminal behaviour. Studies on twins (MZ – identical and DZ –
non-identical), families, and individuals that had been adopted were conducted. In MZ twins there was a
53% concordance rate and in DZ twins there was a 21% concordance rate, according to Raine (1993). In
families, researchers found that 75% of convicted parents had a convicted child showing there is offending
behaviour that continues through generations. In adoption studies, Crowe found that adopted children with a
biological parent with a criminal record had a 50% greater risk of having a criminal record by the age of 18.
However, this is a reductionist explanation. The genetic explanation is better at explaining violent tor
aggressive crimes because of candidate genes that offenders may possess (i.e. the MAOA gene). But not all
crimes are violent. For example, theft and drug use don’t have rot be violent. This means that the genetic
explanation is an incomplete explanation.
The neural explanation is the final explanation. This argues that the brain of offending criminals might be
structured differently to people who do not demonstrate offending behaviour. For example, Raine (2004)
cited 71 brain imaging studies showing that murderers, psychopaths, and violent individuals have reduced
functioning in the pre-frontal cortex (the area of the brain that is involved with regulating emotion and
controlling moral behaviour).
A strength of this is that there are practical applications. One benefit of research into neural abnormalities is
that it can lead to methods of treatment. For example, if low levels of serotonin cause an increase in
aggression, then theoretically people in prison could be given a diet that would increase their serotonin
levels (e.g. by avoiding artificial sweeteners, which are known to increase the production of serotonin). This
means there are practical benefits to knowing the neural explanation of offending behaviour which extend
beyond academia.
There are three biological explanations of offending behaviour. These include the historical approach
(atavistic form), the genetic explanation, and the neural explanation. The atavistic approach was proposed by
Lombroso (1876) and it is the idea that every offender has atavistic characteristics in common. These
characteristics include having a sloping jaw, high cheek bones and facial asymmetry. When Lombroso
conducted his study, he concluded that 40% of criminal acts could be accounted for by atavistic
characteristics.
However, the atavistic explanation is criticised because of its racial undertones. There is another atavistic
feature that Lombroso identified as bring present in criminals and that is having dark skin and curly hair.
These features are more likely to be found amongst people of African descent. This means that his ideas
may reflect racist ideas which were widely held in the late 19th century, which had no validity then and
shows great issues with temporal validity now.
The genetic explanation of crime argues that there is an inheritance of a gene/combination of genes that
determine whether an individual will show criminal behaviour. Studies on twins (MZ – identical and DZ –
non-identical), families, and individuals that had been adopted were conducted. In MZ twins there was a
53% concordance rate and in DZ twins there was a 21% concordance rate, according to Raine (1993). In
families, researchers found that 75% of convicted parents had a convicted child showing there is offending
behaviour that continues through generations. In adoption studies, Crowe found that adopted children with a
biological parent with a criminal record had a 50% greater risk of having a criminal record by the age of 18.
However, this is a reductionist explanation. The genetic explanation is better at explaining violent tor
aggressive crimes because of candidate genes that offenders may possess (i.e. the MAOA gene). But not all
crimes are violent. For example, theft and drug use don’t have rot be violent. This means that the genetic
explanation is an incomplete explanation.
The neural explanation is the final explanation. This argues that the brain of offending criminals might be
structured differently to people who do not demonstrate offending behaviour. For example, Raine (2004)
cited 71 brain imaging studies showing that murderers, psychopaths, and violent individuals have reduced
functioning in the pre-frontal cortex (the area of the brain that is involved with regulating emotion and
controlling moral behaviour).
A strength of this is that there are practical applications. One benefit of research into neural abnormalities is
that it can lead to methods of treatment. For example, if low levels of serotonin cause an increase in
aggression, then theoretically people in prison could be given a diet that would increase their serotonin
levels (e.g. by avoiding artificial sweeteners, which are known to increase the production of serotonin). This
means there are practical benefits to knowing the neural explanation of offending behaviour which extend
beyond academia.
