3. biological explanation: atavistic form Flashcards
what is the atavistic form
a biological approach to offending that attributes criminal activity to the fact that offenders are genetic throwbacks or a primitive subspecies ill suited to conforming to the rules of modern society. such individuals are distinguishable by particular facial and cranial characteristics.
how did lombroso characterise offenders
saw them as lacking evolutionary development and their savage and untamed nature meant that they would find it impossible to adjust to the demands of civilised society and would inevitably turn to crime. as such lombroso saw criminal behaviour as a natural tendency rooted in the genealogy of those who engage in it.
what are the atavistic characteristics
the criminal sub type could be identified as being in possession of particular physiological markers that were linked to particular types of crime.
cranial characteristics include a narrow and sloping brow, a strong prominent jaw, high cheekbones and facial asymmetry. other physical markers included dark skin and the existence of extra toes or fingers.
went on to categorise particular types of criminal in terms of their physical and facial characteristics - murderers were described as having bloodshot eyes, curly hair and long ears.
also suggested there were other aspects of the born criminal including insensitivity to pain, use of criminal slang, tattoos and unemployment.
describe lombroso research
examined the skulls of 383 dead criminals and 3839 living ones and concluded that 40% of criminal acts are committed by people with atavistic characteristics.
how did lombroso contribute to criminology
‘father of modern criminology’ - he is credited as shifting the emphasis in crime research away from a moralistic discourse (offenders were judged as being wicked and weak minded) towards a more scientific and credible realm (evolutionary influences and genetics).
also in trying to describe how particular types of people are likely to commit particular types of crime his theory heralded the beginning of criminal profiling. in this way he made a major contribution to the science of criminology.
how does scientific racism limit the explanation
several critics have drawn attention to the distinct racist undertones within his work. many of the features that lombroso identified as criminal and atavistic (such as curly hair and dark skin) are most likely to be found among people of african descent.
whether lombroso intended this to be the case or not is a matter of debate - though there is little doubt it is an uncomfortable and controversial aspect of his legacy which continues to overshadow criminology.
what contradictory evidence is there
goring conducted a comparison between 3000 criminals and non criminals and concluded that there was no evidence that offenders are a distinct group with unusual facial and cranial characteristics (though he did suggest that many people who commit crime have lower than average intelligence). whilst the point about intelligence does offer some limited support to lombroso argument that criminals are a sub species it does question the key element of his theory that criminals are different in terms of their appearance.
double whopper = lombroso did not compare his criminal sample with a non criminal control group. it is possible that the significant differences in atavistic form that he reported may have disappeared. lombroso also failed to account for other important variables within his research - many of the criminals he studied had a history of psychological disorders which may have confounded the findings = poor control of his research.
how does causation limit the approach
even if there are criminals who have some of the atavistic elements in their facial appearance that lombroso suggested this does not necessarily mean this is the cause of their offending. facial and cranial differences may be influenced by other factors (such as poverty or poor diet) rather than being an indication of delayed evolutionary development.
in his later work he took a less extreme stance - acknowledging that criminals could be made as well as born due to a range of environmental factors.
