Biological trait theory
The early attempts to explain criminal and deviant behavior began with the supposition that there was something inherently erroneous with the perpetrators. The difference between criminal and non-criminal behavior was seen as fixed and obvious and the inability of certain individuals to adhere to social norms was elucidated in terms of sin or moral degeneracy. The biological theory of crime was introduced by Cesare Lombroso whose study of the physical characteristics of criminals persuaded him that criminal behavior was biologically inherent (Lauer, 1982, p.18). The work of Lombroso fascinated many people and scholars all of whom failed to perceive the serious mistake made by Lombroso in the methodology.
Lombroso had failed to assess the physical characteristics of conformists additionally and thus had failed to demonstrate that the distinctive characteristics found in the criminals were also common among the conformists’ population. This mistake was later corrected by a British physician who illustrated that the physical features of criminals were not different from those of the conformists. Various developments were made to Lombroso’s theory. In 1949, William Sheldon tried to categorize individuals according to three types of body structure: endomorphs (soft and round), mesomorphs (muscular and agile), and ectomorphs (skinny and delicate). Sheldon then carried out a study using a small sample of juvenile delinquents and found out that majority of the juvenile delinquents were mesomorphs. This argument was later supported by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck in 1956 who argued that the body structure affects the predisposition of people to criminal activities but also the experiences and personal characteristics play an important role (Siegel, 2007, p.96).
Later developments of the biological theory argued that criminals had an extra the chromosome that gave them a combination of XYY. Successive studies indicated that even though males with the XYY combination are not more violent than other criminals they are found more often in criminal than in conformists groups. The XYY individuals are also most likely to be extraordinarily tall thereby exposing them to social stigma and limiting their job prospects. Their predisposition to commit crimes is therefore high (Taylor et al., 1973). The biological theory differs from the other theories of crime in many ways. First, it emphasizes individuals rather than on society and other environmental factors that influence people to commit crimes. Secondly, it fails to locate the main causes of crime and instead locates the criminals themselves in society. The theory is useful in explaining some forms of criminal activities particularly those perpetrated by mentally incapacitated individuals. It can however be more useful if it could explain the occurrence of crime in general and if it could locate the major causes of crime in society.
Theory of anomie
The conflict theory is based upon the concept of anomie that was introduced by Emile Durkheim and further propounded by Merton. Anomie is the state of confusion that arises in society if there is a conflict between the socially approved goals and the means of achieving the goals (Siegel, 2004, p.134). Every society has its own distinct socially approved goals which may differ from those of another society. Likewise, each society has put in place the socially acceptable means of achieving these goals. The American society, for instance, puts great emphasis on material wealth commonly described as the American dream. The socially acceptable means of achieving this dream are through education and later employment. However, millions of Americans such as those of the minority groups lack access to these acceptable means of achieving the goals (Allan and Steffensmeier, 1989, p.109).
A state of anomie arises when such a conflict arises. Those lacking the acceptable means will look for other means of achieving their goals, albeit unacceptable. This is the reason why the majority of crimes in the United States are committed by members of the poor and minority communities. To them, crime becomes a means through which their desired goals of attaining material wealth can be achieved. The conflict theory differs from the biological theory in the sense that it does not locate the criminals in the society but instead, it identifies the major cause of criminal and deviant behavior in the society. Additionally, the conflict theory puts the blame on society rather than on individuals by arguing that it is the society and the forces in it that force individuals to commit crimes. The theory helps explain certain crimes such as property crimes but it fails to explain the occurrence of other crimes such as homicide and sexual abuse. The theory also assumes that every member of the society agrees to the goals that are defined by the wider society, which in many cases is not true. Solving these limitations would greatly enhance the conflict theory.
Differential association theory
The main notion of the cultural-transmission theory is that criminal behavior is learned. This theory was introduced by Sutherland who observed that even though high-crime communities evolve, the level of crime remains the same. Sutherland argued that the persistence of crimes in such areas is a result of the socialization process through which new residents learn the criminal activities from others in the community. This process of learning is called differential association. Robertson argues that “Just as people will tend to be conformist if their socialization emphasizes a respect for the prevailing norms, so they will tend to become deviant if their socialization encourages contempt for these norms,” (1981, p.186).
However, since everyone is exposed to both conformists and deviants, some factors determine the predisposition of people to be criminals or conformists. These factors include the intensity of contacts, age of contacts, and the ratio of contacts with criminals and conformists. The intensity of contacts refers to the strength of contact with conformists or criminals. Individuals who have strong relationships with criminals will most likely turn out to be criminals and vice versa. The age at which contact with criminals occurs also matters; children and adolescents who interact with criminals are more likely to become criminals than adults. Thirdly, people who interact with more criminals than conformists are likely to become criminals themselves (Reid, 1994, p.67).
The cultural-transmission theory differs from the biological theory in the sense that it tries to identify the cause of crime in the society rather than the criminals themselves. In this sense, it is similar to conflict theory. The theory differs from both the biological and conflict theory because it explains the process through which people born as conformists become criminals. This process is important in understanding criminal behavior but it has not been addressed by the other two theories. The limitation of the cultural-transmission theory lies in the fact that many criminal activities are perpetrated without necessarily coming into contact with criminals, for instance, a rapist does not need to learn the act from others. Secondly, some criminals activities are learned from contact with conformists, for instance, embezzlement (can be learned through an accounting course). Most importantly, some individuals such as lawyers spend a great deal of their time with criminals yet they do not become criminals. The improvement of the cultural-transmission theory can thus be improved by addressing these shortcomings.
References
Allan, E.A., and Steffensmeier, D. (1989). Youth, underemployment, and property crime. American Sociological Review 54, 107-123.
Lauer, R. (1982). Social problems and the quality of life (7th ed.). Missouri: McGraw Hill.
Reid, S.T. (1994). Crime and Criminology. Dubuque: Brown communications, Inc.
Robertson, I. (1981). Sociology (2nd ed.). New York: Worth Publishers, Inc.
Siegel, L. (2007). Criminology: The Core (3rd ed.). Florence: Cengage Learning, Inc.
Taylor et al. (1973). The new criminology. London: Routledge $ Kegan Paul.