Crime is very difficult to explain and many criminologists have attempted to explain crime but none has come up with conclusive evidence about crime. Criminologists are accused of failing to achieve their goal because they are not willing to try new methods that are found in fundamental sciences (Beaver & Walsh 2008).
The biosocial method incorporates the help offered by the fundamental sciences. It integrates the traditional methods used in criminology with approaches used in biological sciences. Anyone who would have tried to bring up the question of using biological sciences in criminology would only have been met with opposition and derision. This was because sociology was used in training most criminologists and sociology denies claims made by other disciplines concerning crime. Furthermore most criminologists had poor training in biology and few were interested in changing their view point in criminology by learning other methods outside what they learnt in school. This was sad because biological sciences in ten years have helped in understanding of behavior than sociology has done for about fifty years (Beaver & Walsh 2008).
Nevertheless some criminologists are willing to embrace other disciplines to understand criminal behavior. The society set the stage for a crime to occur but crimes are executed by human beings who have genes, blood and brains and this entails biology. Not only does biosocial comes recognize the role the environment plays in influencing human behavior but also that the environment acts on different human materials. Therefore biosocial shows how similar environmental aspects influence human beings differently (Beaver & Walsh 2008).
Biosocial criminology is dynamic in that it explains human behavior in the different paths of development. Things that were meaningful at one point in their life may become meaningless for example approval from peers. On the other hand things that meant little to them previously may become very important to them later. The approach goes further, gives explanations why the changes occur at one point of their lives and not others. In addition the approach explains how different individuals are affected by these changes differently. Unlike traditional criminology theories that are static. They entail the notion that criminal behavior once initiated in a human being it will become self perpetuating and thus continuous (Beaver & Walsh 2008).
From research done criminal behavior has continuity. Antisocial behavior observed in childhood can be traced even in childhood. Researches done over a long period of time have shown that criminal behavior over continues over time. From the research it was observed that children involved in criminal behavior were more likely than those who did not have childhood delinquency to become adult offenders. Childhood delinquency acts as a prerequisite for criminal behavior later in adulthood. Stability was also observed between early belligerent behavior and criminality later in adulthood. The continuity in criminal behavior was observed across many countries therefore this can be said to be a universal behavior pattern. Wright (2008) noted that social bonds formed for self control in childhood resulted into bonds later into adulthood and if there was childhood delinquency in the childhood social bonds it a sign of adulthood offending. Later Wright (2008) found that social bonds and self control are connected when it comes to crime and those with low self esteem formed the bonds to make them feel that they were in control. To them crime was a way of showing that they are in control.
Continuity in criminal behavior is associated with negative opportunities for engaging in crime that adulthood permits. The young adults are lured into crime in the labor market and later they are convicted. While in incarceration they do not change their behavior which is always the intention of sending offenders to state correction centers. While in jail they learn new ways of doing crime when they join jail gangs and after they are released they continue the criminal behavior. This group finds it hard to find a job due to their felony history and if they are lucky to their job stability is reduced (Beaver & Walsh, 2008).
Criminal behavior is related to our genetic make up as well as the environment. Children who develop in violent environment are more likely to become violent later in life. This is because they expect people to treat them with violence and they therefore behave accordingly because this is the only way they know from what they have observed day in day out. Experiences in childhood organizes the brain development and the neural pathways laid down at this early stage are not altered later thus the child develops with a brain that is ready to be influenced by any antisocial behavior (Beaver & Walsh, 2008). Therefore violence and brain is related.
Adult criminal behavior in most cases needs a childhood that was antisocial though not all anti social children become adult offenders. However stability is attributed to genetic makeup and environment that remain stable over a period of life that may lead one to the path of crime. The biological and social processes in a human being become consistent and thus they are replicated throughout one’s life though changes may occur that may move a person from one path to another. It can therefore be said that one may start on a wrong path when young and stay on that course.
References
Beaver, K.M. & Walsh, A. (2008). Contemporary Biosocial Criminology: New Directions in Theory and Research, New York: Taylor & Francis
Wright, J. Tibbetts, S. & Daigle, S. (2008). Criminals in the Making: Criminality across the life course, Los Angeles CA: SAGE.