Discussion
The fourth chapter discusses the theme of social responsibility (only criminals are responsible for crimes since they have a free will and make a choice to commit or not commit a crime) versus social problems (a free will is denied, and crimes are caused by the factors, which are beyond the individuals’ control).
Speaking of early biological theories, many of them assumed that crimes were caused because of the forces that were beyond the individuals’ control. Among those forces were both physical traits and genetic data, which a person got from birth, and environmental factors and conditions, which were not dependent on a person as well. As a prime example, there was a theory of early positivism that “implied that offenders were not entirely (if at all) responsible for their crimes and suggested that crime could be prevented by changing the conditions that produced criminality” (Schmalleger, 2015, p. 60).
However, early biological approaches were focused mainly on physical features, such as body types, a form of the human skull, facial features and so on. Although those theories did admit the impact of the social environment, according to them, it was still minor. Modern theories, on the contrary, are much more concerned about social factors. Moreover, they examine the interaction between the human body and its environment, instead of studying each of these factors individually.
Therefore, although early biological theories supported the social problems’ perspective, the overall picture, in comparison with modern theories, was too simple and incomplete.
Early Biological Perspectives on Criminal Behavior
The differences between historical and contemporary biosocial theories of crime
The evolution of biological theories of crime can be divided into two periods: the 1960-1980s when the first, early, theories were developed and the 1990s when contemporary once appeared. The first period gave the world a bit “simplistic” approaches, which took into consideration only basic physical traits, such as body constitution, facial features, etc. (Schmalleger, 2015, p. 81). Early criminologists also believed that criminality could be possibly passed down through the generations. On the contrary, modern approaches, besides all the factors mentioned above, are also based on neurophysical conditions, hormones, nutrition, and genes. Additionally, those are much more concerned about the impact of environmental and social factors on criminal behavior.
Central principles of biological theories, their differences from other perspectives
Biological theories assume that the criminal behavior is connected to people’s physical features, such as the skull’s form, body composition, neuro physical conditions and so on. Besides, many criminologists agree that genes and chromosomes also matter, and criminality at least partly is dependent on heredity. Additionally, some of the approaches take into consideration the impact of social factors. So, while other theories of criminal behavior look for its causes mainly from the outside, biological ones examine internal factors.
Positivist school of criminology and the historical importance of positivism
Positivists used the scientific knowledge to study crimes and criminal behavior and asserted that the crimes were caused by factors, which were “beyond the control of the individual” (Schmalleger, 2015, p. 82). They believed that not only criminals were responsible for the crimes they committed but their environment as well, and by changing the conditions people could change the number and outcomes of crimes. Positivists were also convinced that the world consisted of facts that could be measured and even controlled. Positivism has a historical value since it lies at the basis of the majority of early theories as well as criminology per se.
References
Schmalleger, F. (2015). Criminology Today (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.