biological explanations - atavistic form

• Lombroso (1876) proposed criminals were ‘genetic throwbacks’ – a primitive sub-species who were biologically different to non-criminals (atavistic form)

  Atavism – evolutionary throwbacks e.g. traits reappearing which had disappeared generations before

  Though now discredited, it laid the foundation for modern profiling.
• Lombroso:

  Offenders lack evolutionary development – their savage and untamed nature means they can’t adapt to civilised society so they turn to crime

  Saw criminal behaviour as innate and not the criminals fault
• Suggested different features for different criminals…

  Murderers:

  • Bloodshot eyes
  • Curly hair
  • Long ears

  sexual deviants:

  • Glinting eyes
  • Swollen lips
  • Projecting ears

  thieves:

  • Expressive face
  • Small, wandering eyes
• Lombroso shifted the emphasis away from a moralistic discourse (e.g. offenders were wicked) towards a more scientific and credible realm (evolutionary influences and genetics).

  In many ways Lombroso’s theory heralded the beginning of criminal profiling
• weakness -

  Several critics have drawn attention to the distinct racial undertones within Lombroso’s work. Many of the ‘atavistic’ features (curly hair, dark skin) are most likely to be found among people of African descent.

  The racial undertones overshadow the work and may lead to wrong assumptions about some races
• weakness -

  Goring (1913) compared 3000 criminals and 3000 non-criminals and concluded there was no evidence that offenders are a distinct group with unusual characteristics. 

  questions key element of Lombroso’s theory that criminals are different in terms of their appearance – reduces validity of his theory
• weakness -

  Facial and cranial differences may be influenced by other factors e.g. poor diet, rather than an indication of delayed evolutionary development

  We can not determine causation between physical characteristics and criminal offences.