1 / 17

Early Biological Positivism 1850-1930

Early Biological Positivism 1850-1930. Lombroso’s “Born Criminal” Criminals as “atavistic throwbacks” Identified through presence of “stigmata” Peaked nose (as bird of prey) Sloped forehead, large jaws Strong canine teeth (as with carnivores) General hairiness of the body

maribel-herandez
Download Presentation

Early Biological Positivism 1850-1930

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Early Biological Positivism1850-1930 • Lombroso’s “Born Criminal” • Criminals as “atavistic throwbacks” • Identified through presence of “stigmata” • Peaked nose (as bird of prey) • Sloped forehead, large jaws • Strong canine teeth (as with carnivores) • General hairiness of the body • Others: Phrenology, Body Type, “feeblemindedness”

  2. The XYY “supermale” • An extra Y chromosome • Initial discovery in 1961 • Flurry of activity immediately after • Not a “supermale” • Low intelligence, physiological differences • More evidence that XXY abnormality related to crime • Even here, very rare and due to learning disorders

  3. The demise of early positivism 1. Poor theory • Single biological trait as direct cause of crime. 2. Poor/biased research • Crime runs in families (Dugdale) 3. Dangerous policy implications • Eugenics movement Largely discredited by Sociologists by 1950.

  4. Where does biology stand now? • Impression from the Barkan book? • Criticizes all biological research on “poor methodology” or “shifting definitions of crime” • Example, Barkan: “Why don’t all aggressive or risk-seeking people commit crimes?” • Football players, sky-divers • Response: But, why don’t most people who face poverty and inequality commit crime? • Get a job at MacDonalds, muddle through life

  5. Is Criminality Inherited? KEY IS SEPARATING “NATURE” AND “NURTURE” • Parental Deviance (Crime runs in family) • Twin Studies • Adoption Studies

  6. Parental Deviance • Parent’s crime and deviance is a robust predictor of the child’s delinquency • Due to genetics, or other factors? • Deviant parents more likely to use harsh/erratic discipline, less supervision? • Deviant parents live in bad neighborhoods? • Deviant parents abuse children/each other?

  7. Twin Studies • Compare MZ twins with DZ twins • Concordance rates = if one twin is criminal, is the other? • Danish Study (Christiansen, 1979) • MZ=52% • DZ=22%

  8. Adoption Studies • Compare the two sets of parents that an adopted youth has. • Biological parentsgenetics • Adoptive parentssocial circumstance

  9. Cross Fostering AnalysisMednick et al. (1984) CRITICISMS OF THIS?

  10. Biology is not necessarily dependent on genetics • Prenatal or Perinatal harms • Maternal smoking, drinking, drug use • Low birth weight, premature, delivery complications • Environmental Influences • Diet (excessive sugar, etc) • Exposure to toxins (e.g., lead) • Physical harm (head trauma, etc)

  11. What “biological” mechanisms are inherited or damaged? • Neurological Functioning • PET scans, EEG readings • Indirect measures (IQ, Impulsivity tests) • Central Nervous System (CNS) or Anatomic Nervous System (ANS) • Heart rate • Skin Conductance

  12. HOW might biology effect behavior? • Direct Effects (less common) • Head traumapersonality (Phinneas Gauge, Charles Whitman) • Diet: Excessive Sugar Hyperactivity • Indirect Effects • Less responsive nervous system response to pain  hard to “condition” • Maternal Smoking during pregnancy  impulsivity/low IQ  school failure  delinquency

  13. Terrie Moffit’s “Biosocial” Theory • Biology • Some children have slight neurophysiological deficits • Causes of NPD? Perinatal harm, genetic… • Results of NPD? “Difficult temperament,” Slow to learn, difficult to parent, impulsive… • Environments • Some parents are poorly equipped to handle such a child • Lack of resources, lack of parenting skills

  14. Biosocial Explanation of Female Delinquency • Caspi et al. (1993) • Biology • Early sexual maturation in females • Measure = age at first period • Environment • Exposure to crime prone associates • Measure = type of school (mixed gender or not)

  15. Policy Implications • Old Biology • Eugenics • New “Biosocial” • Social factors can be changed, biology can identify “at-risk” children • Some biological factors can be changed • Drugs • Reduce prenatal risk to fetus

  16. Barkan’s Critique of Biology and Crime • The “relativity of deviance” • Methodological problems • Inadequate control, small sample sizes, etc • “Group rate differences” • Social/policy implications • Can’t change biology?

  17. SUMMARY OF BIOLOGY • All modern biological theories incorporate sociological or psychological concepts. • Biology related in an indirect fashion--and with the environment. • Caspi’s research on female criminality • Moffitt’s biosocial theory

More Related