Lecture Notes on Biological and Psychological Theories

As promised, below are the lecture notes on the biological and psychological theories of criminal behavior. PLEASE INCORPORATE THIS MATERIAL IN YOUR CLASS NOTES, BECAUSE I WILL ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT ON THE UPCOMING MIDTERM EXAM AND IT MAY BE OF SOME USE ON YOUR FIRST SHORT ESSAY.
_____________________

BIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES

A. The following brief overview of biological and psychological theories of criminal behavior is not intended to be comprehensive or exhaustive. By treating these theories so briefly, I do not mean to imply that they are not worth careful consideration. My main intention is to present these theories as a COUNTERPOINT or CONTRAST to the various sociological theories which, of course, emphasize the role of SOCIAL forces over and above any aspects of our biological or psychological make up.

B. Lombroso and the Early Biological Theories

1. The classical school of criminology (i.e., deterrence) was dominant up until the late 19th century when what is known as "biological positivism" took hold, which directly challenges the notion that crime is rational behavior. (In fact, I would go as far as to suggest that biological and psychological theories see criminal behavior as a product of some biological or mental DEFECT or ABNORMALITY, rather than ordinary, rationally-calculating individuals.)

2. The early biological criminologists viewed criminals as a distinct set of people who were biologically inferior to law-abiding citizens, or inherently defective in some way. Pre-eminent among them was Cesare Lombroso, a self-described "medical anthropologist" and physician, who wrote "The Criminal Man" in 1876, which, despite its major flaws, went through 5 editions. He has been considered the "father of modern criminology" because he used a scientific methodology to study criminals (and NOT because of the stength of his theory).

3. In his research, Lombroso compared Italian prisoners (representing the criminal population) with soldiers (representing the "normal" population). He found that the prisoners shared distinctive physical traits or abnormalities which identified them as being a "born criminal type" -- really throwbacks to primitive man. Traits such as asymetry of face or head, large ears, receding chin, twisted nose, etc.

4. There is an obvious problem with both of the samples he used: prisoners do NOT represent all criminals and even worse, soldiers are in no way representative of the normal population. Indeed, that was largely the basis of Charles Goring's refutation of Lombroso in his 1913 book, "The English Convict." Goring took a much broader sample of the normal or non-criminal population and found no significant physical differences with English convicts.

5. Despite Goring's rather thorough critique, Lombroso's idea did not die. It was resurrected by E.A. Hooten in 1939, who argued that criminals are basically "organically inferior." (Indeed, Edwin Sutherland, the father of American criminology, developed his theory of DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION in part as a critical response to Hooten. Sutherland also pioneered the field of white collar crime, which suggested that only focusing on street criminals was inadequate.)

C. More modern biological theories

1. By the 1950s, biological theories in criminology had pretty much been discredited. Sociological theories were coming into vogue. But biological theories did not die but were resurrected and have become more sophisticated due to our increasingly sophisticated understanding of human physiology and genetics.

a.) For example, in the 1960s biological explanations got a short-lived boost from the "XYY super-male criminal theory" -- that an additional Y chromosome makes an individual more volatile and aggressive. But, among other problems, it was found that only a small proportion of XYY males commit crimes of any kind (lots of exceptions, that is), and there was no evidence that the XYY syndrome is the specific cause of any criminal behavior. (And that is not to mention that female criminals were overlooked.)

2. Modern biological theories of crime and delinquency, often based on advances in genetics, brain function (eg. serotonin levels in the brain), neurology, biochemistry, are considered more respectable, despite some methodological problems. These theories are clearly more sophisticated than the early, simplistic BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM (biology is destiny, that is) of people like Lombroso. They acknowledge the role of other social factors, and largely relegate biological factors to the role of PROPENSITIES or PREDISPOSITIONS (that is, biological factors may PREDISPOSE someone to commit a crime but they do NOT DETERMINE that someone will commit a crime).

D. Policy implications of biological theories

1. Older, more deterministic theories would lead to more drastic measures, such as "selective breeding," which Hooten acually suggested, or completely isolating these born criminals in prison, or executing them, since they were biologically determined to commit crime.

2. Contemporary biological theorists support dietary therapy, genetic counseling, drug therapies, but they would also support changes in the social environment. In this context, you would still have to deal with the problem of "false postiives," that is, people who may have these criminally-prone biological characteristics but who do not commit crimes. Often talking about 50% or more, not just a few exceptions. So, would early (preventive) intervention with some drug therapy be justified if half of those receiving it really did not need it?


E. Psychological Theories

1. One type of psychological theory that was more popular some years age when PSYCHOANALYSIS was more in vogue, is the PSYCHOANALYTIC theory based on Freud's view of the human psyche, consisting of: id, ego, superego. Without getting very specific, one could say that the psychoanalytic explanation relies heavily on the existence of irrational, unconscious motivations (id) not being properly handled or controlled by other aspects of the psyche (ego, and especially, superego or conscience). Or, the flip side would be an overbearing superego which would give rise to "repressed sexuality," or excessive guilt.

(a) It is difficult to assess the empirical validity of psychoanalytic theories because they rely on a careful examination of individual cases by a trained psychoanalyst, and however compelling they may seem, you cannot extrapolate to the larger population. It is difficult to replicate and independently verify the psychoanalyst's diagnosis.

2. Then you have what could be called PERSONALITY theories. Here you are dealing with more conscious, observable (measurable) aspects of personality. The basic proposition being that criminals have abnormal, inadequate or specifically criminal personality traits that set them apart from law-abiding people. This would include traits such as aggressiveness, impulsiveness, sensation-seeking, risk-taking, etc. (although we should also acknowledge that these traits do NOT necessarily manifest themselves in criminal behavior.)

(a) Apparently, research on the causative effects of such personality traits on criminal and deviant behavior has been INCONSISTENT.

(b) You also run into the problem of TAUTOLOGY (circular argument or true by definition and therefore incapable of being disproven). For example, psychopathic personality being measured, in part, by a prior history of criminal and deviant behavior, which would make the theory that a psychopathic personality leads to criminal behavior true by definition.

3. Psychological counseling of various kinds is widely employed in delinquency prevention and treatment programs, as well as in virtually every residential and non-residential facility for treating criminal offenders. But the effectiveness of such counseling has not been demonstrated, which would suggest perhaps that psychology is not the problem but something else needs to be addressed.

FINAL CRITICAL OBSERVATION ABOUT BOTH BIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES:

I believe neither theory by itself (or even combined in some way) can offer an adequate explanation for criminal behavior for the basic reason that: THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT BIOLOGICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL BEING. INDIVIDUALS ARE ALSO SOCIAL AND CULTURAL BEINGS. That is to say, the individual is really a system of relations which includes the social and cultural dimension as well as the biological and psychological dimensions. Also, given the fact that crime is a matter of social definition, that would suggest that the social dimension is ultimately more important than the biological or psychological in explaining criminal behavior.
_____________________

That's all for now.