Historical Approach

• Lombroso (1876) calls criminals "genetic throwbacks" as they are an un-evolved subspecies that are genetically different to non-criminals
• Lombroso (1876) claims criminals failed to evolve and revert to an atavistic pre-evolutionary form
• Lombroso (1876) claims criminals have a savage nature and so are unable to take part in society resulting in crime
• Lombroso (1876) claims crime is an innate instinct and so criminals cannot be fully blamed for their crimes
• Lombroso (1876) claims atavistic facial features are a sign of criminality as they are less evolved characteristics
• EGs of atavistic characteristics; bloodshot eyes and curly hair (murderers) fleshy lips and glinting eyes (sexual deviants) thin lips (fraudsters)
• Lombroso (1876) claims nurture traits also play a role in criminality such as slang and tattoos
• Lobroso (1876) studied the skulls and facial features of 383 dead and 3839 living criminals and found 40% of criminal acts showed a correlation with atavistic characteristics
• Strength; real world application as Lombroso's research was used to transform criminology from a moral standpoint to a scientific practice
• Strength; supported by the biological approach which would say characteristics like criminality are genetic
• Weakness; Critics such as Delisi (2012) have pointed out many atavistic characteristics such as curly hair are more commonly found in black people meaning the theory may be racially biased to profile black individuals
• Weakness; Goring (1913) compared 3000 offenders and 3000 non-offenders and found no evidence that offenders have more atavistic characteristics HOWEVER the study did support Lobroso's assumption that criminality correlates with below average intellegence
• Weakness; Lombroso's study did not use a control group
• Weakness; Lobroso's study is unethical as deceased participants could not consent to be studied
• Weakness; socially sensitive as it claims certain individuals are genetically predestined for criminality
• Weakness; biologically deterministic as it does not consider free will
• Weakness; would be rejected by a behaviourist approach as it does not consider environmental factors like class in offending