Summary Essential Criminology
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 4: ‘BORN TO BE BAD’ | BIOLOGICAL, PHYSIOLOGICAL, AND BIOSOCIAL THEORIES OF
CRIME ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
BIOLOGICAL AND POSITIVISTIC ASSUMPTIONS ………………………………………………………. 2
THE BORN CRIMINAL …………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
EARLY US FAMILY-TYPE AND BODY-TYPE THEORIES …………………………………………………. 3
CONTEMPORARY BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ……………………………………………………….. 3
BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY: A DEVELOPMENTAL EXPLANATION OF CRIME …………………. 3
CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL LIMITATIONS ………………………………………………………….. 4
CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY IMPLICATIONS ……………………………………………………………… 4
CHAPTER 5: CRIMINAL MINDS | PSYCHIATRIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS FOR
CRIME ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
FROM SICK MINDS TO ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR …………………………………………………………. 5
SHARED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ……………………………………………………………… 5
THE PSYCHOANALYTIC APPROACH ………………………………………………………………………… 5
TRAIT-BASED PERSONALITY THEORIES …………………………………………………………………… 6
BEHAVIORAL, SITUATIONAL, AND SOCIAL LEARNING AND MODELING THEORIES ………… 6
COGNITIVE THEORIES …………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
ECOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………. 7
EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………………. 7
CHAPTER 6: LEARNING CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR ……………………………………………………………….. 8
COMMON THEMES AND DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS ………………………………………………… 8
SUTHERLAND’S DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY …………………………………………….. 8
COGNITIVE SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY …………………………………………………………………. 9
NEUTRALIZATION THEORY: LEARNING RATIONALIZATIONS AS MOTIVES ……………………… 9
CHAPTER 8: CRIMES OF PLACE | SOCIAL ECOLOGY AND CULTURAL THEORIES OF CRIME …… 12
THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF SOCIAL ECOLOGY THEORY …………………………………………… 12
COMMON THEMES AND ASSUMTIONS …………………………………………………………………… 12
THE CHICACO SCHOOL ………………………………………...…………………………………………….. 13
THE NEW SOCIAL ECOLOGY THEORIES .…………………………………………………………………. 14
CULTURAL THEORIES OF CRIME AND DEVIANCE ……………………………………………………… 16
CHAPTER 9: THE SICK SOCIETY | ANOMIE, STRAIN, AND SUBCULTURAL THEORY ………………… 18
COMMON THEMES AND ASSUMPTIONS …………………………………………………………………. 18
FOUNDERS OF ANOMIE AND STRAIN THEORY …………………………………………………………. 18
RECENT REVISIONS TO ANOMIE AND STRAIN THEORY ….…………………………………………… 20
CHAPTER 12: NEW DIRECTIONS IN CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY .…………………………. 23
CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGIES ……………………………………………………………………………………. 23
1
,Chapter 4: ‘Born to Be Bad’ | Biological, Physiological, and Biosocial
Theories of Crime
The biological approach to criminology uses the term biogovernance to describe the
use of biotechnology to manage potential deviants. This chapter covers the search for
crime causes, its historical evolution, early and contemporary studies, recent
developments, findings, assumptions, and policy implications.
Biological and Positivistic Assumptions
Biological theories suggest that individuals have unique characteristics or
predispositions that, when triggered by environmental factors, can lead to criminal
behavior. Early biological criminologists focused on studying the individual rather than
the act, believing that understanding personal di>erences could reveal the causes of
criminal tendencies. The positivist approach asserts that social behavior, including
crime, can be studies scientifically using methods from the natural sciences. Criminal
anthropologists argued that physical laws, rather than free will, determined criminal
behavior, and that criminals could be identified by their physical traits.
The Born Criminal
Lombroso’s theory of atavism, inspired by Darwinian ideas, posited that criminals are
hereditary throwbacks to less developed evolutionary stages. These criminals, identified
by physical anomalies or ‘atavistic features’, could be studied scientifically, leading to
the development of criminal anthropology. Lombroso classified criminals into four
groups:
1. Born criminals: Atavistic individuals, prone to serious crimes and recidivism.
2. Criminals by passion: Those who commit crimes due to emotional distress or
perceived injustice.
3. Insane criminals: Individuals with mental impairments who can’t di>erentiate
right from wrong.
4. Occasional criminals: This group includes several subtypes; the criminaloid
(weak of nature), the epileptoid (su>ers from epilepsy), the habitual criminal
(whose occupation is crime), and the pseudocriminal (commits crime by
accident).
Lombroso later acknowledged the influence of socio-environmental factors on criminal
behavior. Lombroso’s student, Enrico Ferri, expanded on these ideas by emphasizing
that crime arises from physical, anthropological, and social factors. Rejecting the notion
of crime as a free choice, Ferri advocated for preventive measures like hygienic
measures (social and environmental changes), therapeutic remedies, and surgical
operations rather than punitive punishment. Another of Lombroso’s students, Ra>aele
Garofalo, believed crime stemmed from an organic flaw, hindering moral development
and altruism. He argued that criminals who failed to adapt to society should be removed
through death, imprisonment, or enforced reparation, in line with the natural
evolutionary process.
2
, Early US Family-Type and Body-Type Theories
The migration of freed slaves and poor European immigrants to the U.S. led to ideas of
inherent di>erences among individuals, ethnic groups, and families. Dugdale suggested
that crime was concentrated in illegitimate family lines, prompting a shift toward
studying criminals rather than crimes. By the early 20th century, social science research
had become more rigorous, incorporating larger sample sizes and control groups.
Sheldon identified three body types:
1. Endomorphs: Round, soft bodies with thick necks.
2. Mesomorphs: Muscular, strong-boned, with broad shoulders and a tapering
trunk.
3. Ectomorphs: Thin, fragile bodies with large brains and developed nervous
systems.
Sheldon acknowledged no one is a pure type and that personality traits and criminal
tendencies could vary by body type. Fishbein later criticized early biological criminology
as unscientific, overly simplistic, and prone to reinforcing class, gender, and racial
stereotypes. Despite these flaws, these theories sparked the development of more
sophisticated biosocial criminological approaches, incorporating insights from
neuroscience and multidisciplinary research.
Contemporary Biological Perspectives
Despite earlier methodological flaws, biological theories and scientific methods remain
influential in criminology. They propose that multiple genes interact to create varying
genetic predispositions to criminal behavior. Twin and adoption studies have provided
key evidence for genetic theories of crime:
1. Twin studies show higher criminal concordance rates in monozygotic (identical)
twins compared to dizygotic (fraternal) twins, though critics argue this may result
from similar environmental influences.
2. Adoption studies suggest that biological children of convicted criminals are
more likely to have criminal records resembling their biological partents than
their adoptive ones, supporting a genetic predisposition.
Both approaches, however, face criticism for methodological limitations, including
environmental confounding factors.
Biosocial Criminology: A Developmental Explanation of Crime
Biosocial criminology suggests that criminal behavior arises from the interplay of
hereditary and environmental factors. While sociobiologists acknowledge the influence
of environment and experience, they emphasize the biological mechanisms driving
behavior, including the ‘selfish gene’, which prioritizes genetic survival and dominates
others. The concept of conditional free will describes how biological and
environmental factors constrain and shape decisions, with disturbances in these
conditions increasing the likelihood of deviant actions.
3
