biological explanations of offending behaviour: an historical approach

Question 1

define atavistic form

Answer 1

• biological approach
• proposed by lombroso 1876
• attributes criminal activity - offenders = genetic throwbacks/primitive subspecies ill-suited to conforming to the rules of modern society
• distinguishable by particular facial + cranial characteristics

Question 2

how is the atavistic form a biological approach?

Answer 2

• saw criminals = lacking evolutionary development
• offending behaviour = natural tendency rooted in genes
• innate + therefore offender not to blame

Question 3

what is the atavistic form?

Answer 3

• offenders can be identified by having physiological ‘markers’ linked to types of offence
• biologically determined ‘atavistic’ characteristics
  cranial: narrow, slowing brow, prominent jaw, high cheekbones + facial symmetry - dark skin - extra toes/nipples/fingers
  not physical: insensitive to pain, slang, tattoos + unemployed

Question 4

what are three categories of criminals and their features according to lombrosso?

Answer 4

• murderers - loodshot eyes, curly hair, long ears
• sexual deviants - glinting eyes, swollen + fleshy lips
• fraudsters - thin + reedy lips

Question 5

what was lombroso’s research?

Answer 5

• examined 3839 living skulls and 383 dead skulls of criminals
• 40% of crimes accounted for by atavistic characteristics

Question 6

evaluate an historical approach to offending behaviour

Question 7

what contradictory evidence is there for the atavistic approach?

Answer 7

• goring 1913
• compared 3000 criminals + 3000 non-criminals
• concluded - no evidence that offenders = distinct group with unusual characteristics
• lowers validity - suggests criminals not physically distinguished from pop

Question 8

what can be a possible counterpoint to the contradictory evidence for the atavistic approach?

Answer 8

• goring suggested offenders have lower than average intelligence
• limited support for argument - criminals = subspecies

Question 9

how is poor control a limitation of lombroso’s research?

Answer 9

• failed to control important variables
• unlike goring - no non-offender control group to compare to
• could have controlled couf variables that might have equally explained higher crime rates in certain groups of people
• ex. research has suggested links between crime + social conditions - may explain unemployment
• does not meet modern scientific standards