Atavistic form

• Atavistic form

  A biological approach to offending that attributes criminal activity to the fact that offenders are genetic throwbacks or a primitive subspecies ill suited to conforming to the rules of modern society. Such individuals are distinguishable by particular facial and cranial characteristics.
• Lombroso's historical approach


  Laid the foundations of profiling
• Cesare Lombroso wrote the book L'Uomo Deliquente (the criminal man)


  1876
• Lombroso's theory of the atavistic form

  • Offenders are 'genetic throwbacks' - a primitive sub-species who are biologically different from non-criminals
  • Offending behaviour is innate and therefore the offender is not to blame for their actions
• Atavistic characteristics


  Biologically determined features of the face & head that make offenders physically different from the rest of us
• Atavistic characteristics


  • Narrow sloping brow
  • A strong prominent jaw
  • High cheekbones
  • Facial asymmetry
  • Dark skin
  • Existence of extra toes, nipples or fingers
• Other aspects of the atavistic form

  • Tattoos
  • Insensitivity to pain
  • Use of slang
  • Unemployment
• Offender types


  Different types of criminals have different physical characteristics that are linked to particular crimes
• Offender types

  • Murderers - blood shot eyes, curly hair and long ears
  • Sexual deviants - glinting eyes, swollen fleshy lips and projecting ears
  • Fraudsters - thin and 'reedy' lips
• Lombroso found that 40% of criminal acts are accounted for by atavistic characteristics
• Lombroso examined the skulls of 383 dead criminals and 3839 living ones and concluded that 40% of criminal acts are committed by people with atavistic characteristics
• Strengths of Lombroso's research


  • Shifted emphasis in research away from moralistic discourse to scientific discourse
  • Heralded the beginning of criminal profiling
• Limitations of Lombroso's research


  • Racial undertones - many of the atavistic features are most likely to be found among people of African American descent
  • Contradictory evidence - Goring found no evidence that offenders are a distinct group with unusual characteristics
  • Poor control - Lombroso did not compare his criminal sample with a non-criminal control group
  • Causation problem - facial and cranial differences may be influenced by other factors rather than being an indication of delayed evolutionary development
• Lombroso's theory represents the nature vs nurture debate in criminology
• A biological approach

  Offenders lack evolutionary development.

  Their savage and untamed nature meant that they would find it impossible to adjust to the demands of civilised society and would inevitably turn to crime.

  Therefore, Lombroso saw offending behaviour as a natural tendency rooted in the genes of those who engage in it. He was proposing that offending behaviour was innate (a new perspective at his time) and therefore the offender was not to blame for his actions – in this way his ideas were revolutionary.
• Lombroso’s research

  He found that 40% of criminal acts accounted for by atavistic characteristics.

  Lombroso meticulously examined the facial & cranial features of hundreds of Italian convicts, both living and dead, and concluded there was an atavistic for.

  Furthermore he concluded that these features were key indicators of criminality.

  He examined the skulls of 383 dead convicts and 3839 living ones and concluded that 40% of criminal acts are committed by people with atavistic characteristics.
• Offender types

  Different types of criminals have different physical characteristics.

  Lombroso suggested that particular physiological ‘markers’ were linked to particular crimes.

  e.g. murderers were described has having blood shot eyes, curly hair and long ears, whereas sexual deviants had glinting eyes, swollen fleshy lips and projecting ears and the lips of fraudsters were thin and ‘reedy’
• Atavistic form – a biological approach to offending that attributes criminal activity to the fact that offenders are genetic throwbacks or a primitive subspecies ill suited to conforming to the rules of moder society. Such individuals are distinguishable by particular facial and cranial characteristics.
• One strength of Lombroso’s research is its large contribution to criminology.

  Lombroso has been hailed as the ‘father of modern criminology’ (Hollin 1989) and credited as shifting emphasis in research away from moralistic (e.g. weak minded) discourse to scientific discourse (e.g. evolution and genetics). Also, in trying to describe how particular types of people are likely to commit particular types of crime, Lombroso’s theory heralded the beginning of criminal profiling. In this way he made a major contribution to the science of criminology.
• One -ve is the racial undertones of Lombroso’s work.

  Many of the features that Lombroso identifies as criminal + atavistic such as curly hair + dark skin, are most likely to be found among people of African-American descent. Similarly, his description of the atavistic form as being uncivilised primitive + savage would lend support to the eugenic philosophies of the time. (i.e that certain groups should not be allowed to breed). Lombroso’s intention is unclear, but there is little doubt that these racial undertones are an uncomfortable + controversial legacy which overshadows his work.
• A further limitation is the contradictory evidence for the atavistic form.

  Goring 1913, compared 3000 criminals with 3000 non-criminals and concluded that there was no evidence that offenders are a distinct group with unusual characteristics. But he did suggest that many people who commit crime have a lower-than-average IQ – this offers limited support for the idea of a criminal sub-species. However, this evidence does question the key element of his theory that criminals are different in terms of their appearance.
• Another limitation is the poor control in Lombroso’s research.

  Unlike Goring, Lombroso did not compare his criminal sample with a non-criminal control group. Had he done so, the significant differences in atavistic form may have disappeared. Lombroso’s research also failed to account for other important variables. Many of the criminals he studied had a history of psychological disorders which may have acted as confounding variables. Therefore, the evidence on which the atavistic form is based has serious flaws.
• A final limitation is that causation is a problem in Lombroso’s theory.

  Even if there are criminals who have atavistic elements in their facial appearance, this does not necessarily mean this is the cause of their offending. Facial and cranial differences may be influenced by other factors (e.g. poverty or poor diet) rather than being an indication of delayed evolutionary development. Although, in fairness to Lombroso, in his later work he acknowledged that criminals could be made as well as born. NATURE V NURTURE DEBATE
• Offenders lack evolutionary development

  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. Therefore, Lombroso saw criminal behaviour as an innate tendency and thus was proposing a new perspective for his time that the criminal was not at fault. In this was his ideas were revolutionary.