Historical approach-EVAL Flashcards
ATAVISTIC: One STRENGTH about Lombroso is that he was very influential in the study of crime.
*Made the term ‘criminology.’
*Shifted emphasis in crime research away from moralistic discourse towards a scientific position-evolutionary influences and genetics so individuals not to blame.
*Lombrosos theory heralded the beginning of offender profiling.
Therefore, this shows that Lombroso had made a major contribution to the study of science of criminology.
HOWEVER, critics question whether Lombrosos legacy is entirely POSITIVE. There were RACIST undertones within his wok, many atavistic features (curly hair, dark skin.) are usually found in people of AFRICAN descent, basically suggesting that Africans were more LIKELY to be offenders.
Therefore some aspects of his theory were SUBJ and influenced b y racial PREJUDICES of the time.
ATAVISTIC: One PROBLEM is that there’s evidence contradicting the link between atavism and crime.
Research conducted COMPARISONon 3000 offenders and 3000 non-offenders, concluding that there was NO evidence that offenders are a DISTINCT group with unusual facial/cranial characteristics.
Therefore this CHALLENGES the idea that offenders can be physically DISTINGUISHED from rest of the pop, challenging the CONCEPT of them being a sub-species i.e. Atavistic form.
ATAVISTIC: One LIMITATION is that there was a LACK of CONTROL in Lambrosos studies.
FAILED to control important variables within his research, didn’t COMPARE his offender sample with a NON-offender control group which could have controlled for CONFOUNDING variables that might have EQUALLY explained higher crime rates.
THEREFORE this means the lack of control may have meant that there were confounding variables which LOWERED the IV of the studies, questioning if he really WAS measuring the LINK btw atavistic form and crime. Research therefore LACK scientific CRED.
ATAVISTIC: One WEAKNESS is that atavisic form is genetically DETERMINISTIC:
atavistic form suggests crime has a BIO cause, genetic determinism supporting the NATURE side of debate.
However, even if criminals DO have atavistic features, causation is a problem in Lombrosos theory as this does not mean this is the cause of offending.
Facial and cranial features may be INFLUENCED by other factors e.g. poverty rather than being an indication of evolutionary genes.
Therefore maybe an INT approach should be used i.e. nature/nurture interactionism people with features described as atavistic may be MORE likely to lean towards crime due to the way that they are TREATED and SOCIALISED.
GENETIC: one STRENGTH of the geetic explanation is that there is research evidence to support that geentic factos DO play a part in offending behaviour.
Concordance rates weer 76% for MZ twins, and only 12 for DZ twins.
HOWEVER the MZ rate is NOT 100% which suggests that this is NOT entirely genetic and there must be OTHER factors that are influencing offender behaviour e.g. ENVIRO factors. This suggests a nature/nurture INTERACTION in offender behaviour.
A PROBLEM with using twin studies in offending eb==behaviour is that MZ twins are MORE likely to be exposed to SAME enviro than DZ twins, as identical twins Look similar so people TREAT them the same. Therefore a high concordance rate could be a result of the INCREASE in enviro. similarity NOT genetic similarity.
This QUESTIONS the impact of genetics on offending behaviour and makes it HAD to separate out the relative impact of nature or nurture on offending behaviour.
GENETIC: one STRENGTH for diathesis stress model is that thee is research support
study of 13,000 DANISH adoptees. If neither bio o adoptive parents had convictions, adoptees that did was 13.05%. if EITHER parents had then adoptees had 20% and if BOTH had convictions ten adoptive rates rose to 24.5%
Therefore this shows that genetics DO show an importance in offending, but so does environment which SUPPORTS the D.stress model.
NUERAL: one STRENGTH of the nueral explanation is that there’s SUPPORT for the link between crime and the frontal lobe.
Study on frontal lobe DAMAGE and ANTISOCIAL behaviour, people with damage showed IMPULSIVE behaviour, emotional INSTABILITY and an INABILITY to learn from their mistakes.
this therefore SUPPORTS that brain damage to frontal lobe may be a CAUSE of offending behaviour as it gives RISE to the type of characteristics that offenders would POSSES.
HOWEVER, the relationship btw neural differences and APD may be MORE complex as there could be other FACTORS which CONTRIBUTE to APD and offending. Research found that a group of men who had scored HIGH for APD had experienced VARIOUS risk factors during childhood e.g. raised by a CONVICTED parent or being NEGLECTED.
Therefore it could be THESE early childhood experience that caused AD and SOME nueral differences associated with it e.g. reduced activity in frontal lobe.
THEREFORE there may be an ISSUE with the cause and effect and it may be that the nueral differences may be an AFFECT of other factors such as childhood risk factors. also those factors may be acting as a 3rd VARIABLE which has cause BOTH apd and the nueral differences so the relationship btw nueral diffs and apd is V complex.
GENETIC: one ISSUE with genetic explanation to offender behaviour is that it is DETERMINISTIC:
Bio approach (genetic+nueral) of offending behaviour are an example of bio determinism which is also HARD determinism suggesting we have NO free-will and offending behaviour WILL happen if we have certain issues with our genetics or nuerons.
This is also a problem as it is at ODDS with our justice system as our system is based on the idea that we are RESPONSIBLE for out actions apart from EXCEPTIONAL circumstance e.g. mental illnesses where it may be agreed that they LACK responsibility. Therefor the bio explanation COMPLICATES this issue as it means we may feel we cannot convict these criminals and suggests the theory is not useful.
