Evaluate the Social and Biological approaches to explaining criminal behaviour. The biological approach is an approach that explains criminal behaviour by biology. This means that we are born to behave in this particular way. This may include factors like the brain structure, brain function, genes and etc of the participant. The social approach is different to the biological approach.
Perspectives of Social Problems and Social Responsibility Within criminology there has been multiple theories suggested to explain the numerous motives behind why crime exists in our world. The two most central arguments surrounding criminal activity is whether the crime is the individuals fault, or if it is the fault of the society that they grew up in. These views are termed social responsibility and social problems, and will be discussed in this paper along with their respected perspectives that withhold why their view on criminology is the paramount reason on why criminals commit crimes. The view of social responsibilities approach to crime termed by Schmalleger essentially states that crime is an individual responsibility, and in terms of the criminal, victim, and justice system we all play a role within the social aspect of criminal behavior. Although he feels that this way of looking at crime is not fair to the victim or the justice system, but that the media over the years has influenced this way of thinking, giving the conception that certain conditions surrounding when, where, or how the crime took place may be the factor in why it happened in the first place.
Along with a brief description of the criminological theories, an attempt to show how they differ from one another and discussion of one strength and one weakness unique to each theory will be made. Finally, I will provide my opinion as to which of the two philosophies (classical or positivist) explains criminal behavior in a much more complete manner and why. The first of the criminological theories is called Social Control Theory. What makes a person not a criminal? This is the main question asked in control theories.
Right realists believe that crime is not a social construction as other theories such as the labelling theory believe they believe it is a real problem. Official statistics show an increase in violence against the person’s offences of 1% and an increase of 25% in sexual offences against girls. Right realists state crime destroys communities as well as threatens work ethic in today society, this view is shared with neo conservatives. As stated in item A James Q Wilson states that crime is a result of biological differences, some people are more biologically predisposition to commit crime. Eysenck’s personality theory states criminal behaviour is a result of genetics and the nervous system.
There are many fields that fit into this, one of these fields being criminal profiling. The Medical Dictionary (2012) states that criminal profiling is “a brief description of the personality of an individual”. Professionals expand on this by saying that it is “the act of developing a psychological profile of an offender based on the state of the crime scene” (What is Criminal Profiling, 2003). There has been many a debate about whether criminal profiling is a reliable and valid tool to use when trying to catch an offender. For something to be valid it has to assess what it is supposed to assess (Psychology for the VCE student, 2005), therefore personality profiling when in correlation with criminal profiling is a valid tool.
Biosocial Theory Vs. Lombrosian Theory Modern Biosocial and the Lombrosian Theory The modern biosocial theory is interdisciplinary in nature integrating biology, sociology, and behavioral psychology to explain the cause of crime. As a result, it is far more complex than the traditional approach that mostly focuses on the biological aspect only. Although modern biosocial theory does not reject or abandon all of the elements of traditional theories, it certainly places less emphasis on biology and more on social and environmental factors. For the purposes of this paper, the traditional biological theory will refer mostly to the Lombrossian theory as he is considered the father of positivism and pioneer biological approach to explain crime. The objective of this paper is to compare and contrast modern biosocial theory to traditional biological theory by highlighting the integrative and complex nature of modern theory and also discuss their policy implications for crime control and prevention.
The first explorations of deviance and crime was done by Durkheim who identified two different sides of crime for the functioning of society: positive and negative. According to Durkheim, crime was necessary for society. He argued that the basis of society was a set of shared values that guide our actions, which he named the collective conscience. The collective conscience provides boundarie which distinguishes between actions that are acceptable and those that are not. The problem for any society is that these boundaries are unclear and change over time.
There is also agreement on an adversary system, procedural due process, and one’s day in court (Zalman, 2008). The most important function of the crime control model is as stated by Packer (1968), ‘the repression of criminal conduct by the criminal process’” “because public safety is essential to personal freedom” (Zalman, 2008, p. 5). The presumption surrounded by this value system is, in American society there will be a breakdown of public order if law enforcement does not keep a tight reign on criminals and their activities, and citizens of this
Pioneered by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, the developmental theory of crime, integrates sociological, psychological, and economic elements into more multifarious developmental views of crime causality. In an effort to produce a more holistic view of a criminal career, which incorporates its inception, prolongation, and dissolution, social scientist have established developmental theories. When applied specifically to intimate partner violence these theories can provide insight into the behavioral patterns of abusers. Intimate partner violence (IPV), according to the CDC, is “a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner.” This abuse can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats that influence the behavior of another person. Intimate partner violence is a serious problem particularly in the United States because on average, 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in the United States, which sums up to more than 12 million women and men over the course of a year.
DESCRIBE AND CRITICALLY EVALUATE ANY BIOLOGICAL THEORY OF VIOLENCE/HOMICIDE One of the main problems faced by criminologists is explaining why certain individuals commit crime and especially violent crime. Biological theories focus on the individual offender, positing an inherent predisposition towards criminality. Theories based on individual positivism fell out of favour in the early 20th century but have seen something of a resurgence in recent years due to the advances in genetics and this essay will explore whether there is a genetic contribution to crime through looking at twin studies. Twin studies involve the comparison of criminality among monozygotic (MZ) or identical twins and dizygotic (DZ) or non identical twins (Brookman, 2005). ‘Whereas MZ twins are identical in hereditary endowment, DZ twins are no more alike genetically than common siblings’ (Dolgard and Kringlen, 1976, p.213).