Advanced Criminology (university Utrecht)
Content table:
Lecture 1: Introduction to Advanced Criminology (chapter 4 & 5)
Lecture 2: Social Ecology & Cultural Theories (chapter 8)
Lecture 3: Strain Theories (chapter 9)
Lecture 4: Social Learning and Neutralisation Theories (chapter 6)
Lecture 5: Subcultural Theories (Chapter 9, pages 222-226 + articles)
- Hayward, K., Ilan, J. (2012). Deviant Subcultures, Routledge Handbook of Deviant
Behaviour, pp 233-239. (On BB)
- Williams, J. P. (2014). Subcultures and deviance. The death and resurrection of
deviance, pp 108-24. (On BB)
Lecture 6: Critical Criminology (chapter 12)
Book: Lanier, M.M., Henry, S., & Anastasia, D.J.M. (2015). Essential Criminology (4th ed.).
Routledge. (+ Extra articles as provided on Blackboard)
, Chapter 4: Born to be bad: Biological, physiological, and biosocial theories of crime
The biological approach to criminology suggests that criminal behavior may be inherited or linked
to physical or neurological factors. Advances in biotechnology, such as biometrics ( ngerprints,
face id) and functional brain imaging, are increasingly used in crime prevention and detection,
raising ethical and legal questions. Historical theories like phrenology attempted to link physical
traits to criminality. A theory that suggested crime and behavior were controlled by speci c areas
of the brain. Practitioners believed that criminal tendencies could be determined by measuring
bumps on a person’s skull. Liberals often criticize biological theories of crime for shifting blame
from social causes to individuals, while bio-criminologists focus on biological factors, arguing that
social issues distract from scienti c research.
Biological and Positivistic Assumptions
Biological criminology focuses on the idea that individual traits or predispositions, combined
with environmental triggers, in uence criminal behavior. Unlike classical theories that emphasized
free will, early biological criminologists studied the criminal's nature, believing certain physical or
biological traits made some people more prone to crime (vatbaar). In the mid-19th century, Cesare
Lombroso and his students, in uenced by Darwin's theory of evolution, developed the Italian
School of criminology. They rejected the classical view of free will, emphasizing biological
determinism and the idea that some people are naturally more prone to crime. This positivist
approach relied on scienti c methods, using tools to measure physical traits to identify "born
criminals." Their work marked a shift from abstract reasoning to empirical, science-based studies.
The born criminal
Lombroso’s theory of “atavism” was based on Darwin’s ideas about humanity’s “worst traits,”
with atavism referring to the reappearance of characteristics lost during evolution. According to
Lombroso, criminals were hereditary throwbacks to earlier, less-evolved forms of humans. He
believed they could be identi ed by physical traits, which he called “atavistic features.” These
included facial asymmetry, extra nipples, toes, or ngers, large jaws, insensitivity to pain, sharp
eyesight, and more. If a person had ve of the eighteen traits, they were considered atavistic.
Lombroso aimed to make the study of criminality a science, which he called criminal
anthropology, by examining, counting, and classifying these traits.
Not all criminals, however, fell into the atavistic category. Lombroso recognized four main classes
of criminals. The rst group, referred to as “born criminals,” was atavistic, responsible for the
most serious o ences, and recidivist. They were the most dangerous and incorrigible. The second
class, “criminals by passion,” commits crime to correct the emotional pain of an injustice. Third
was the “insane criminal,” who could be an imbecile or have an a ected brain and is unable to
distinguish right from wrong. Fourth, the “occasional criminal” included four subtypes: (a) the
“criminaloid,” who is of weak nature and easily swayed by others; (b) the “epileptoid,” who su ers
from epilepsy; (c) the habitual criminal, whose occupation is crime; and (d) the pseudocriminal,
who commits crime by accident.
Enrico Ferri, a student of Lombroso, proposed that crime was caused by physical factors (like
race and climate), anthropological factors (like age and gender), and social factors (like religion
and economy). He believed scienti c experts, not juries, should determine guilt. Rejecting the idea
that crime was a free choice, Ferri focused on prevention, advocating social reforms, better living
conditions, and state-provided services. He also supported therapeutic measures and, in extreme
cases, death to address the root causes of crime.
Garofalo, another student, introduced the idea of “adaptation,” suggesting that criminals who
couldn’t t into society should be eliminated. He proposed three solutions: execution, life
imprisonment, or enforced reparation.
Early US Family-Type and Body-Type Theories
After the U.S. Civil War, some believed certain families and ethnic groups were "socially bankrupt"
or mentally degenerate (aangeboren stoornis). Concerns about poverty, disease, and rapid
urbanization led to interest in eugenics to prevent "un t" individuals from reproducing. Richard
Dugdale studied the Juke family, claiming crime, poverty, and disease were hereditary. Later, E.A.
fi ff fi fi fi flfl fi fi fi fi fi ff fi fi ff
, Hooton compared prisoners and non-criminals, concluding criminals had inherited physical
di erences, though his methods were awed.
William Sheldon introduced "somatotyping," linking body types to crime. Endomorphs (soft,
round and thick necks) were sociable and occasionally fraudulent (bedriegen), ectomorphs (thin,
fragile) were sensitive and occasional thieves, while mesomorphs (muscular) were aggressive and
prone to violent crime. Studies by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck supported some of these ndings
but noted parenting and other factors also in uenced delinquency (criminality). While early
biological criminology was discredited for poor methods and bias, it inspired modern biosocial
criminology, which integrates insights from genetics, neuroscience, and other elds.
Contemporary Biological Perspectives
Contemporary biological theories suggest genetic factors contribute to criminal behavior
alongside environmental in uences. Improved technology has enhanced the study of genetics,
showing that multiple genes and physiological traits may predispose individuals to crime.
Twin studies found higher rates of criminality among identical twins (MZ) compared to fraternal
twins (DZ). For example, Danish studies revealed that 52% of MZ twins shared similar criminal
records, compared to 22% of DZ twins. However, critics argue these studies may be biased by
shared environments, inaccurate data, and reliance on o cial crime records. Adoption studies
examined criminal tendencies in adoptees, nding higher rates of criminality when biological
parents were criminals, even without contact. For instance, boys with criminal biological fathers
but non-criminal adoptive parents had higher conviction rates (20%) than those with non-criminal
biological parents (15%). However, issues like selective placement (matching) by adoption
agencies complicate these ndings. Overall, while genetics may play a role in criminality, these
studies face methodological challenges and cannot fully explain crime.
Biosocial Criminology: A Developmental Explanation of Crime
The study of biological causes of crime, as explored in biosocial criminology, suggests that
genetic and environmental factors interact to in uence behavior. Originating with E.O. Wilson's
Sociobiology, this eld argues that genes and neurobiological mechanisms, such as MAOA
activity, neurotransmitter levels, and hormonal in uences, can predispose individuals to criminality
when combined with environmental stressors. Concepts like "conditional free will" suggest
individuals operate within a range of choices in uenced by these factors. Key theories include:
- Chromosomal Theory: The 1960s theory linking an extra Y chromosome to violent male
behavior (the "supermale" hypothesis) has been debunked; research shows no consistent
connection to violence. (Linking XYY chromosome to aggression)
- Autonomic Nervous System: Law-abiding behavior is learned through childhood caregiver
interactions. A weaker nervous system response may hinder this learning.
- ADHD and Crime: ADHD, a ecting social and professional success, is linked to higher rates of
criminal behavior, with many o enders screening positive for it.
- Hormones: High testosterone and abnormal androgens have been weakly linked to aggression,
but research remains inconclusive.
- Neurotransmitters: Low serotonin levels are associated with impulsivity and aggression, while
dopamine in uences reward-seeking and thrill behaviors. (Serotonin inhibits aggression).
Lee Ellis's biosocial criminology integrates biological, neurological, and evolutionary factors to
explain criminal behavior. Key points include:
1. Sensation-Seeking and Arousal Theory: Individuals with low dopamine levels seek
excitement through risky or criminal behaviors to achieve normal arousal levels, experiencing
a "high" similar to drug use. Low dopamine levels drive some individuals to seek excitement
through risky or criminal activities.
2. r/K Theory: Criminals are likened to "r-strategists," who reproduce proli cally with minimal
care for o spring, contrasting with nurturing “K-strategists.” Persons at the R-end reproduce
proli cally and, therefore, do not need to care much for their o spring because there will be
many, and some will survive. In contrast, those at the K-end produce a small number of
o spring in which they invest much time and energy to ensure their survival, and they are
generally more caring and nurturing. Criminals and psychopaths are expected to be at the
R-end, to come from large families, to begin sexual activity early, and themselves produce
many o spring.
ffff fi ff ff fl
fi flfiff ff fl fifl flflfl ffi ff fi fi fi
