Atavistic approach- Biological

• Who Was the atavistic form introduced by?

  Cesare Lombroso
• Atavistic

  Characterised by something ancient or ancestral
• Outline the atavistic form

  • Early biological explanation
  • Attributes criminal behaviour to offenders being ‘genetic throwbacks’ or primitive sub-species who are not suited to conforming to modern society.
  • Offenders are considered to be biologically different to non-criminals.
  • Offenders can be identified by certain facial and cranial characteristics.
• How did Lombroso view offending behaviour?

  A natural tendency, which is innate therefore the offender was not to blame for their actions.
• How did Lombroso argue that physical characteristics were related to offenders?

  • The offender subtype could be identified as being in possession of particular physiological ‘markers’ that were linked to particular types of offences.
  • These were biologically determined ‘atavistic’ characteristics, mainly features of the face and head that make offenders physically different from the rest of us.
• Eugenics


  Genetically ‘unfit‘ people who should be prevented from breeding.
• Cranial/physical characteristics of an offender

  • Narrow, sloping brow
  • Strong, prominent jaw
  • High cheekbones
  • Facial Asymmetry
  • Dark skin
  • Extra toes, nipples, fingers
• Other traits of offenders

  • Insensitivity to pain
  • use of criminal slang
  • Tattoos
  • Unemployment
• How did Lombroso categorise murderers?

  Blood shot eyes

  Curly hair

  Long ears
• How did Lombroso characterise sexual deviants?

  Glinting eyes, swollen fleshy lipids, projecting ears.
• How did Lombroso characterise fraudsters?

  Thin lips.
• Lombroso’s research

  • He examined the facial and cranial features of hundreds of Italian convicts including both living and dead (383 dead convicts, and 3839 living ones)
  • He concluded that 40% of criminal acts are committed by people with atavistic characteristics.
• Evaluation of Lombroso research

  • Subjective: Not all people may agree with the criteria he uses the classify criminals.
  • Good standardisation: He used the same criteria to characterise all criminals.
  • Good replicability: Can use the same methods and different times and repeat in different places.
  • Culturally bias: He only use Italian criminals, so culturally deterministic.
  • Low construct validity: 40% not a significant amount.
• How did Lombroso’s research change the study of crime?

  • Lombroso is known as the ‘father of modern criminology’ and shifted the emphasis of crime research away from moralistic discourse towards a scientific position.
  • He also assisted in offender profiling as he describes how particular crimes are likely to be committed by particular types of people.
  • This suggests Lombroso has made a major contribution to the science of criminology.
• How does Lombroso’s atavistic form have scientific racism?

  • DeLisi drew attention to the racist undertone of Lombroso’s work. Many of the features that Lombroso identified as atavistic e.g curly hair and dark skin are most likely to be found among people of African descent.
  • This research has implied that Africans were more likely to be offenders a view that fitted 19-century eugenic attitudes.
  • This suggests that some aspects of his theory were highly subjective rather than objective and influenced by racial prejudices of the time.
• Contradictory evidence between atavism and crime

  • Goring like Lombroso wanted to establish whether there was anything physically typical about offenders.
  • After conducting a comparison between 3000 offenders and 3000 non-offenders he concluded that there was no evidence that offenders are a distinct group with unusual facial and cranial characteristics. He did suggests that many people who commit crime have lower than average intelligence.
  • This challenges the idea that offenders can be physically distinguished from the rest of the population.
• How did Lombroso’s research have poor control?

  • Lombroso failed to control variables in his research, unlike Goring, Lombroso did not compare his offender sample with a non-offender control group. they could have controlled for confounding variables which could have explained the higher crime rates in certain groups of people.
  • For instance, Hay and Forest has demonstrated the link between crime and social conditions such as poverty and poor educational outcomes. Might have explained why offenders were more likely to be unemployed.
  • Lombroso’s research does not meet modern scientific standard.