Embedded Files
recap
recap
PRE-CLASSICAL IDEAS ABOUT CRIME AND CRIMINALS LACKED CONSISTENCY
BECCARIA & BENTHAM FOUNDED THE CLASSICAL SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
INDIVIDUALS EXERCISE FREE WILL WHEN CHOOSING TO COMMIT A CRIME AND ARE HEDONISTICALLY MOTIVATED (SEEK REWARD / AVOID PUNISHMENT)
"it is better to prevent crimes than to punish them" - PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE BE SWIFT, CERTAIN AND PROPORTIONAL TO SERVE AS A DETERRET
If you're not sure about the classical school of criminology, don't go beyond this point until you are. Read the summary linked above and if you're still not sure, go back and work through the materials on the previous page. At the time of writing, less than 20% of the class has handed in last week's work on the classical school which doesn't bode well.
THE BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON CRIMONOLOGY
THE BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON CRIMONOLOGY
The development of the classical school of criminology marked a distinct break from the thinking of the past. Instead of focussing on external powers (like demonological explanations) to explain why people commit crimes, Beccaria & Bentham placed the responsibility for an individual's actions with the individual!
It was a step in the right direction but offered quite a simplistic explanation for WHY someone might commit a crime. It's an oversimplification of Bentham's 'felicific calculus' (or 'moral calculus') but according to classical thinking, an individual weighs up the potential reward (money, pleasure, revenge, etc) against the perceived potential punishment and if the former outweighs the latter it's go time!
The classical perspective doesn't consider individual factors (other than what and individual wants) which might contribute to or reduce the likelihood of them being involved in criminal acts. Building on the progress made during the enlightenment, other thinkers of the time came forward to suggest a biological explanation for criminality.
why were biological explanations of behaviour so popular during this time period?
why were biological explanations of behaviour so popular during this time period?
When we looked at the classical perspective on crime, it was apparent that the theory was developed during the 'era of enlightenment' - an intellectual movement during which many aspects of society were thoroughly reviewed with a new-found respect for the scientific approach.
Similarly, initial biological explanations for crime / deviance we a 'product of the time'. So what social an cultural influences might have led to the creation of the biological perspective on crime?
Theory of Evolution - In the wake of Charles Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species (1859)', there was a massive focus on biology and biological differences.
Colonialism - It was also period in which colonialism was rife (at one point the British Empire covered more than 25% of the world) and in turn this drew attention to the biological variations apparent within humans (think race and ethnicity).
Eugenics - Even without travelling abroad and witnessing obvious biological differences, the understanding that there is a degree of heritability for some characteristics led Sir Francis Galton to develop his idea of eugenics - that is, breeding should be controlled so as to maximise positive traits and weed-out undesirable characteristics. Again, this shows a focus on biology - it was a hot topic at the time.
nature
nature
vs
vs
NURTURE
NURTURE
Turning to the biological perspective, we're getting into the age old debate of nature versus nurture. Biological explanations are as far to the nature side of the debate as you can get. Biological explanations for behaviour look at (surprise, surprise) biological factors, such as our genes (and in turn), hormones and structures of the brain
I'm Mixing it up this week, we'll learn about the approach then go back and look at where it started
I'm Mixing it up this week, we'll learn about the approach then go back and look at where it started
ACTIVITY
ACTIVITY
You've probably heard of nature versus nurture before (and even if you haven't you can still try this activity). What is your current understanding of the phrase 'nature vs nurture'.
What do you think 'nature' refers to? What do you think 'nurture' refers to?
Which of these (nature or nurture) do you think the biological perspective is linked to?
Can you think of any characteristics (not necessarily behaviour) which are entirely one or the other?
Can you think of any characteristics that are definitely a mix of both?
<- watch it
<- watch it
Watch the video and/or read the article below to get an introduction to the main points of the nature vs nurture debate. Don't worry about the detail for now, it's about getting the 'gist'
Psst! The biological approach is sometimes lumped in with other approaches in psychology. On a scale of Nature to Nurture, this is how the different approaches in psychology (some of which we'll look at later) would be ordered
ACTIVITY / take notes
ACTIVITY / take notes
Look back at your answers to the activity above. After watching the video and reading the article...
Has your thinking changed?
Have you gained any new information?
How would you summarise the nature versus nurture debate?
Do you agree or disagree with any of the arguments in the article?
Next, using the three headings of 'Biological (Nature)', 'Both (Nature & Nurture)' and 'Environmental (Nurture)' see if you can put each of the following characteristics into what you think is the correct list. If you can explain WHY you have selected that list, even better.
Eye colour
Height
Weight
Knowledge
Intelligence
Aggression
Personality
Shoe Size
Handedness (Left or Right)
Athleticism
Ability to roll tongue
Social Skills
Gender
Depression
Life Expectancy
Crime / Deviance
make sure you write your answers down as we will be discussing these in class
make sure you write your answers down as we will be discussing these in class
Hopefully by this point you're starting to appreciate both sides of the nature versus nurture debate. For now, we'll leave the nurture side of the debate and focus in on nature (biological side) and how it contributes to crime.
If you're not clear on the nature vs nurture debate, go back to the top of this page, read / watch everything and do the activities.
ACCORDING TO BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF BEHAVIOUR, WE ARE GENETICALLY PROGRAMMED TO BEHAVE IN CERTAIN WAYS
ACCORDING TO BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF BEHAVIOUR, WE ARE GENETICALLY PROGRAMMED TO BEHAVE IN CERTAIN WAYS
While reading through the next chunk of this page, think about RESPONSIBILITY. Do we blame a robot for carrying out it's instructions? If we accept that certain behaviours have a high biological component, is it fair to blame humans for their own actions?
Everyone's favourite robot Bender can't help be an obnoxious alcoholic with a proclivity for criminal activities and violence.
It's in his programming. Bender has no free will (he has a slot for it, but it's empty). Everything he does is determined by his programming.
Is Bender to blame for his actions?
For any Futurama fans, "Free Will Hunting" is S07E09
Supporters of biological explanations of behaviour would say that just like a robot, humans have a code that we are bound to. In humans, this code is called the genome. Biological explanations of behaviour (including crime / deviance) would say that our genes determine what we do and (it's important you get this logical leap) free will doesn't exist.
It is an extremely DETERMINISTIC way of looking at behaviour
ACTIVITY
ACTIVITY
Biological explanations of crime rely on this principle of BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM. Using the information on this page and searching the web if need be, come up with a definition for BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM. Include an analogy to support your answer
The following examples are to help you wrap your head round the idea of biological determinism by showing how changes and variations (from person to person) in our biology can impact on how we behave. Remember, our genes (mainly) determine the physical structures of the brain and in turn our biochemistry so things like brain damage and the impact of drugs on behaviour would fall into 'biological'
Did you ever hear the tragedy of Phineas Gage The Wise?
Did you ever hear the tragedy of Phineas Gage The Wise?
Phineas Gage (1823–1860) was a railroad worker in the US. One day while placing explosives for blasting, Gage tamped the gunpowder directly (something you're not meant to do) which resulted in a metal road being blasted clean through his head.
Incredibly, and despite substantial damage to the frontal lobe (the big chunk of your brain at the front!), Gage survived the accident. However, his physician, friends and family alike soon began to notice a distinct change in Gage's behaviour.
Cases like Gage's are few and far between but offered theorists of the time a unique glimpse into the biological workings of the mind and helped to support the emerging biological perspective.
P.S. nowadays we understand that the frontal lobe is involved in higher cognitive functions such as memory, emotions, impulse control, problem solving, social interaction, and motor function
the warrior gene
the warrior gene
Back in the early 90s scientists discovered what later become termed the 'Warrior Gene'. According to some research, variations within this gene can lead to significantly aggressive patterns of behaviour. Watch the video to learn the basics.
activity
activity
'Variations in Biology Lead to Variations in Behaviour'
Using the examples you've just read / watched, write a paragraph or two to explain what the above statement means
IF YOU'VE MADE IT TO THIS POINT AND HAVE A GENERAL GRASP OF THE CONCEPTS ABOVE, THIS NEXT PART SHOULD BE A WALK IN THE PARK. REMEMBER, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO DESCRIBE THE CONTROBUTION OF THE BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE TO EARLY IDEAS OF CRIMINOLOGY
IF YOU'VE MADE IT TO THIS POINT AND HAVE A GENERAL GRASP OF THE CONCEPTS ABOVE, THIS NEXT PART SHOULD BE A WALK IN THE PARK. REMEMBER, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO DESCRIBE THE CONTROBUTION OF THE BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE TO EARLY IDEAS OF CRIMINOLOGY
Our understanding of genes and how they contribute to our behaviour has come a long way in the last century.
Early supporters of biological explanations of behaviour didn't have the scientific abilities we have today and had to make do with the technology of the day.
It wasn't until 1905 that we recognised 'genes' so biological explanations before then looked at other biological characteristics such as anthropometrics.
Anthropometry - "the scientific study of the measurements and proportions of the human body."
Take a note
Take a note
Nowadays when we look at biological causes of behaviour we can delve right into the genome and look at how it influences brain development and biochemistry. However, back in the day, the technology and knowledge just wasn't there so supporters of biological explanations of behaviour looked at other ways of 'measuring' variations in biology such as anthropometry. Instead of comparing one person's genome to another, they compared measurements of physical characteristics such as ear size and brow width.
Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909)
Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909)
Cesare Lombroso was one of the first to put forward a concrete explanation of the interaction between biology and criminal behaviour
In his seminal work, “L’Uomo Delinquente” (The Criminal Man), first published in 1876, Lombroso said some people were ATAVISTIC - essentially genetic throwbacks from a time when man was more primitive (and thus more aggressive / less rational).
Importantly, Lombroso said that a criminal could be identified based on measurements of certain physical characteristics.
The facial and cranial characteristics that Lombroso studied throughout his medical career culminated in a list of specific features; sloping forehead, ears of unusual size, asymmetry of the face, prognathism, excessive length of arms, asymmetry of the cranium, receding forehead, strongly developed jaw, strongly developed cheeks, left handedness, low brain weight, curly hair, as well as other physiological defects such as a third nipple or six fingers. Lombroso identified at least five or similar abnormalities needed to be present.
The man with the golden gun (1974)….super Bond villain and ultra criminal, Scaramanga, famously had a third nipple, what would Lombroso think?
take notes
take notes
Read the article below (which includes this summary) then see if you can rewrite these main points in your own words. You don't need all the tricky terminology - think about what each of these points MEANS and see if you can put it into your own words.
Lombroso's anthropological theory of crime exemplifies the phrase "to judge a book by it's cover".
As he developed his theories, Lombroso also differentiated between different 'types' of criminal based on their physical characteristics. Murderers and the like had a distinct profile with long ears, droopy eyes and sloped foreheads while sex offenders could be recognised by their swollen 'fleshy' lips and 'glinting' eyes which differs from fraudsters who would have thin lips and narrow eyes...
implications for criminal justice
implications for criminal justice
Falling firmly into the nature side of the nature versus nurture debate and placing an emphasis on our biological makeup as a source of behaviour, Lombroso's deterministic view of behaviour has some odd implications for criminal justice and how we 'punish offenders.
If someone, just like a robot, is pre-programmed to behave in a certain way, is it fair to punish them for actions which are arguably beyond their control (do you control which genes you inherited from your parents?).
reflect
reflect
Reflective prompts are aimed to get you thinking about the issues at hand - it's not about being wrong or right it's about developing your understanding through critical analysis.
Think about the criminal justice system today - in general, do we blame the offender for their actions? Are there exceptions to this and if so, why? Who decides where 'the line' is drawn?
let's get meta
let's get meta
In the classical school, crime was the result of a conscious choice made by the criminal - "I don't like that person therefore I will go and punch them" but the biological perspective says that crime / deviance is basically beyond the individual's control "My genes made me do it!"
(P.S. positivism doesn't equal biological but read it as such for now)
reflect
reflect
Which of these approaches do you think is more effective at explaining crime? Which response to crime is the best? Can you think of any obvious pros and cons of the approaches?
activity
activity
Submit your notes for this section or your updated timeline to the 'Biological Perspective' assignment on Teams
Create a new section in your timeline called 'Biological Perspective' and, using the notes you've gathered this week as well as the information on this page see if you can come up with around 200 words based on the prompts below:
Who founded the biological perspective on criminology and when?
What are the main points? Can you summarise the approach using 'core statements'?
What evidence do we have that shows biology can play a role in behaviour?
In terms of criminal justice (punishment), how does the perspective differ from the classical school?
Any weaknesses (think nature vs nurture)?
Page updated
Report abuse