historical/atavistic approach (biological explanation)

• Lombroso 1876 (Italian physician)

  • proposed that criminals were 'genetic throwbacks'
  • ^^ a primitive subspecies who were biologically different from non-criminals (the 'atavistic form')
• biological approach

  • offenders were seen by Lombroso as lacking evolutionary development
  • their savage and untamed nature meant that they would find it impossible to adjust to civilised society and would inevitably turn to crime
  • => he saw offending behaviour as an innate tendency and thus proposing a new perspective (for his time) that the offender was to at fault (=>his ideas were 'revolutionary')
• atavistic form is biologically determined

  • Lombroso argued the offender subtype could be identified by their physiological 'markers'
  • ^^ atavistic markers are biologically determined
• characteristics of the skull/cranium:

  • a narrow, sloping brow
  • a strong prominent jaw
  • high cheekbones
  • facial asymmetry
  • other physical features = dark skin, existence of extra toes/nipples/ fingers
  • other aspects = insensitivity to pain, use of slang, tattoos, unemployment
• different types of offenders have different physical characteristics

  • he claimed particular physiological 'markers' were linked to particular types of crime
  • eg murderers = bloodshot eyes, curly hair, long ears
  • eg sexual deviants = glinting eyes, swollen and fleshy lips
• Lombroso's research

  • he meticulously examined the facial and cranial features of 383 dead convicts and 3839 living ones
  • he concluded that 40% of criminal acts could be accounted for by people with atavistic characteristics
• strength = his theory changed criminology

  • lombroso = the 'father of modern criminology', he shifted the emphasis in crime research away from moralistic to scientific
  • also = in describing how particular types of people are likely to commit particular types of crime, the theory heralded offender profiling
  • => he made a major contribution to the science of criminology
• counterpoint to strength

  • many of the features that Lombroso identified as atavistic (eg, dark skin, curly hair) are most likely to be found among people of African descent
  • ^^ a view that fitted 19th-century eugenic attitudes (to prevent some groups from breeding)
  • suggests his theory might be more subjective than objective - influenced by racist prejudice (scientific racism)
• limitation = evidence contradicts the link between atavism and crime

  • Goring = compared 3000 offenders and 3000 non-offenders, he found no evidence that offenders are a distinct group with unusual facial + cranium characteristics
  • but he did suggest that many people who commit crime have lower-than-average intelligence (=> limited support for atavistic theory)
  • => challenges the idea that offenders can be physically distinguished from the rest of the population, thus they are unlikely to be a subspecies
• limitation = Lombroso's methods were poorly controlled

  • he didn't compare his offender sample with a control group (=> failed to control confounding variables)
  • eg = modern research shows that social conditions (eg poverty) are associated with offending behaviour (this would explain some of Lombroso's links)
  • suggests Lombroso's research does not meet modern scientific standards
• nature vs nurture (extra evaluation)

  • nature = atavistic form suggests that crime has a biological cause (it is genetically determined)
  • nurture = facial and cranial differences may be influenced by other factors (eg poverty, poor diet, drug abuse) rather than inherited
  • suggests that the idea of an innate atavistic form as a predisposing factor for criminality is meaningless