Criminals Can Be Differentiated From Non-Criminals
The purpose of this paper is to assess the positivist notion that criminals can be differentiated from non-criminals. The common theories used by criminologists are biological and classical and they are used to explain the occurrence of crime and criminal behaviours among people in society. The assumption made by positivists is that there exists a distinction between criminals and non-criminals. Positivists have sought to establish scientific proof that crime results from a person’s physical features. Positivists have rejected the Classicism idea that criminals make a choice to commit the crime, and have free will to commit the crimes. Instead, they have argued that biological and environmental conditions determine people's behaviour (Jones, 2013). Positivism is different from classical theorists, but it remains difficult to differentiate between criminals and non-criminals. Nonetheless, criminal tendencies accompanied by low intelligence were more likely to result in criminal behavior.
Positivism focuses on two major perspectives. First, the study of hereditary factors such as bodily features and gene types, and second, the study of the manner in which the environment influences criminal behavior (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2014)). Cesare Lombroso was greatly influenced by Darwin’s findings and based his arguments on the belief that particular body features could be used to differentiate criminals from non-criminals. Persons with higher criminal tendencies were noted to share specific facial as well as bodily characteristics. Thus, some characteristics portrayed by criminals are similar to those of less evolved human beings (Newburn, 2012). This is central to classical criminology which focuses on the agency or personal free will to perform and differentiate what is right from wrong (Lilly et al., 2014). Moreover, positivism is different from classical theory which focuses on crime punishment and deterrence because it focuses on the identification of criminals and protecting them and society. Thus, the biological view emphasizes the actual criminal instead of the crime, and that there are some specific genetic traits that predispose people to become criminals. Classical theorists noted that criminal actions or crimes were learned behavior, and this was different from a genetic predisposition.
Positivism in criminology concentrates on, biological, psychological, and social factors that can be used to describe why some people are criminals and others are not. For example, Siegal (2010) pointed out that some theorists believe that genetic and biological factors have a primary causal role in criminal behavior, whereas others hold the belief that crime results from economic and social factors. Cesare Lombroso also referred to as the father of criminology discovered that criminals could be differentiated from non-criminals by observing physical characteristics. For example, criminals are physically different from normal persons. Specifically, Lombroso claimed that criminals showed abnormal dimensions of the jaw and skull. According to Lombroso criminals are born with distinct physical traits and unlike the beliefs of classical theories, they did not commit crimes as a result of free will (Haines & White, 2008). Lombroso claimed further that particular physical characteristics such as large jaws, high cheekbones, low sloping foreheads, flattened or upturned noses, hawk-like noses, handle-shaped ears, fleshy lips, hard and shifty eyes, and long arms compared to the lower limbs could be used to identify criminals (Einstadter & Henry, 2006).
Lombroso noted that born criminals were atavistic and people possessing five or more of the aforementioned characteristics were born criminals. Nonetheless, some of the people displaying atavistic characteristics become criminals later in life. Lombroso argued that born criminals were supposed to be removed from society for their own protection and that of society through rehabilitation (Haines & White, 2008). In spite of the arguments provided by Lombroso, the theory has been criticized because he failed to match the sample from the prison with another group from the same social and racial background with no prior convictions (Jones, 2013). In addition, he failed to acknowledge the classical point of view that criminals had free will and were made. In a study conducted by Goring (1913) using 3,000 convict and non-convict males, it was established that there were no significant differences between non-criminals and criminals except for their body weight and stature. Goring concluded that Lombroso's atavistic characteristics of a criminal did not exist. Goring was thus convinced that heredity instead of environmental factors greatly determined the propensity of an individual to commit a crime (Johnson, 1998). Thus, Lombroso failed to use economic factors such as scarce resources and unemployment to explain deviance among people in society (Downes & Rock, 2011). This is because, in spite of the perceived body and facial characteristics, there exist factors that influence persons to deviate from social norms and legal frameworks.
Other biological attempts pegged on positivism used to explain criminality include Sheldon (somatotypes), family studies, twin studies, and adoption studies. The biological view has focused on the actual criminal instead of the crime committed but is based on the supposition that genetic traits predisposed some people could influence them to become criminals (Jones, 2013). In regard to the development of biological criminology, past studies conducted in the past focused on persons, most of which concentrated on twins and adopted children studies. Therefore, research exists that suggests that identical twins in comparison to non-identical twins have a high likelihood to display the same patterns of behavior, particularly criminal behavior (Johnson, 1998). This has supported the idea that criminality is genetic and could not be deemed to be learned behavior. For example, William Sheldon pointed out that delinquent youths tended to have high mesomorphy and low ectomorphy. Sheldon further believed that the temperament of mesomorphs made them engage more in criminal activity, compared to others without such characteristics. The offenders were more likely to inherit the criminal behaviours from their parents who during their growth were delinquent. Thus, such behaviour could be inherited and passed from parents to children (Johnson, 1998). Biological theories are criticized because the researchers failed to measure other factors such as the presence of recreational facilities and social-economic factors.
Vold, Bernard, and Snipes, (2010) pointed out that the argument that criminality is non-rational by positivism gets rid of human volition as well as the attached meaning of the criminal activity. Therefore, positivism as a theory has failed to recognise burglary and minor crimes as a result of the inequitable distribution of property and wealth in some capitalist societies. Instead, some of them focus on biology and genes to explain why people become criminals (Einstadter & Henry, 2006). Classical theorists have accepted that criminals have willpower and the ability to differentiate right from wrong. Thus, the argument that determinism plays a significant role in the development of criminal habits denies the alternative possibilities that persons could be confronted with at different stages in their life. Accordingly, this has denied consciously reflecting on the available options and making their own rational choices in the decision-making process. Positivism has equated crime to under-socialization instead of accepting that socialization plays a major role in developing criminal behaviours. Classical theorists have accepted that criminals learn crime and that deterrence through the judicial system could play a major role in reducing the social-economic problem.
Although there is a perceived link between personal genetics and the cause of criminal offending, there is limited evidence to show the connection. This makes it hard to differentiate a criminal from a non-criminal by simply addressing biological-predisposed characteristics. Moreover, society and social factors could have to be included in behaviours of people and crime as well.
In conclusion, the paper has assessed the positivist notion that criminals can be differentiated from non-criminals. Although positivism has been applied to explain how people can identify criminals and protect them from harming society and themselves, it is less applicable in modern criminology because of the assumptions made. For example, biological criminology is a poor theory because it only provides explanations to single biological traits which cause criminal behavior. This is absurd to believe that a person’s individual biological structure and Lombroso's atavistic characteristics of a criminal can be applied to show the cause of their criminality. All positivism theories applied to prove that criminality is genetic or inherited are to some extent biased because of is hard to differentiate between hereditary factors from environmental ones. Nonetheless, from the critical review, it may be noted that biological influences could be related to criminal behavior indirectly, especially when combined with various environmental factors. Also, an individual’s genetics could play a significant role, although parental upbringing is more likely to contribute to criminal tendencies, and should thus be considered. There is limited proof that criminality is hereditary and not learned because it is hard to separate hereditary criminal influencers from environmental influencers. Also, biological dispositions tend to be fixed, but crime varies and is basically a construction. Thus it can be stated that a person has specific dispositions to behave in a specific way, and this is what is used to define a person as criminal or not. Thus, mere disposition and characteristics cannot be used to describe a criminal. Therefore, there is no criminal gene in existence to explain crime; it is the behaviour that is criminalized.
References List
Downes, D. & Rock, P. (2011) Understanding Deviance. 6th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Einstadter, W., & Henry, S. (2006) Criminological Theory: An analysis of its underlying assumptions. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Goring, C (1913) The Etiology of Crime, Journal of Men's Studies, vol. LXIV, pp. 129-146.
Haines, F. & White, R. (2008) Crime and Criminology: An Introduction. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Jones, S. (2013) Criminology 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, M. (1998). Genetic Technology and Its Impact on Culpability for Criminal Actions. Cleveland State Law Review, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 443-470
Lilly, J., Cullen, F., & Ball, R. (2014) Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences Sage.
Newburn, T. (2012) Criminology Cullompton Devon: Willan Chpt 5.
Siegal, L. J. (2010). Criminology, The Core. Lowell: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Vold, G., Bernard, T. & Snipes, J. (2010) Theoretical Criminology 6th ed. New York: Oxford.
