atavistic form - historical approach

Question 1

who was lombroso

Answer 1

-he suggested criminals were genetic throwbacks
-they were primitve subspecies biologically different from non criminals

Question 2

how was the biological approach applied

Answer 2

-their savage untamed nature means theyd turn to crime
-crime was natural tendency rooted in their genes
-offender was not to blame it was their genes ‘innate’

Question 3

what was the atavisitc form

Answer 3

-cranial and face features which made offenders different to others

Question 4

what did the atavisitc form include

Answer 4

-narrow
-sloping brow
-strong jaw
-high cheek bones
-facial asymmetry
-extra toes
-extra nipples
-dark skin

Question 5

what are other traits that arent physical

Answer 5

-insenisitivity to pain
-use of slang
-tattoos

Question 6

what were murderes described as

Answer 6

-bloodshot eyes
-curly hair
-long ears

Question 7

what were sexual deviants said to have

Answer 7

-glinting eyes
-swollen , fleshy lips
-projecting ears

Question 8

what were the lips of fraudsters like

Answer 8

-thin and reedy

Question 9

what was lombrosos research

Answer 9

-examined facial and cranial features of hundreds of convicts , concluded there was atavsitic form
-skulls of 383 dead and 3839 living people and saw 40% of criminal acts by those w atavistic features

Question 10

strengths of this theory

Answer 10

(legacy)
-changed the study of crime
-moved to a more scientific approach of looking at genetics
-describes how particualr people are more likely to commit crime
-helped beginnign of offender profiling

Question 11

weaknesses to theory

Answer 11

(counterpoint legacy)
-delisi criticises the racist undertones
-features identified most likely found in african descent
-suggested africans were more likely to offend

(contradictory evidence)
-Goring carried comaparison between 3000 offenders and 3000 non offenders
-no evidence of distinct group with unsual cranial and facial features
-but found those who commited crimes had lower than average IQ
-challenged lombrosos validity

(poor control)
-lombrosos didnt compare his offender sample with non offender control grp
-may hv been confounding variable
e.g crimes may be more linked to social conditons e.g poverty and poor ED to why offenders may be unemployed and commit crime.
-his research doesnt meet scientfic standards

(nature or nurture)
-facial and cranial features may be infulenced by other factors e.g diet rather than inheritance