Criminology Unit 2 Comprehensive Overview

Biological Theories: Physiological Approaches

Ever wondered if criminals actually look different from everyone else? Lombroso's theory suggested exactly that - he believed criminals were "born criminals" with distinctive physical features like large jaws and long arms.

His study of prisoners' heads and faces led to the concept of atavism - the idea that criminals are evolutionary throwbacks to more primitive humans. Meanwhile, Sheldon's somatotype theory focused on body types, finding that mesomorphs (muscular, athletic builds) were most likely to be criminal due to their risk-taking nature.

Lombroso's strengths include being the first to study crime scientifically and highlighting the importance of clinical records. However, major limitations include racist assumptions, lack of control groups, and no real evidence linking facial features to criminality.

Quick Tip: Remember that mesomorphic builds might result FROM criminal lifestyles rather than causing them - correlation doesn't equal causation!

Biological Theories: Genetic Explanations

Your genes might influence more than just your eye colour - some researchers believe they could affect criminal behaviour too. Twin studies compare identical twins (sharing 100% genes) with non-identical twins (sharing 50% genes) to see if criminality runs in families.

Christiansen's research found 52% concordance in criminality for identical twins versus only 22% for non-identical twins. Adoption studies by Mednick showed that adoptees' criminal behaviour matched their biological parents more than their adoptive parents.

The XYY syndrome study by Jacob examined whether having an extra Y chromosome (the "super-male" syndrome) predisposed men to violence. They found higher rates of XYY in prisons, but critics argue this might be due to labelling or the syndrome being too rare to explain much crime.

Remember: If criminality were purely genetic, identical twins would show 100% concordance - but they don't, proving environment matters too!

Brain Injuries and Biochemical Factors

Sometimes crime literally comes from inside your head. Brain injuries can dramatically alter personality - the famous case of Phineas Gage showed how a metal rod through his brain completely changed his behaviour from mild-mannered to aggressive.

Biochemical explanations focus on how substances affect criminal behaviour. Testosterone peaks during the same age range as criminality (puberty to early twenties), while female hormones during PMT, postnatal depression, and lactation have all been used as legal defences.

Blood sugar levels, prescription drugs, and even substances like lead have been linked to aggressive behaviour. However, these biological factors often need environmental triggers to actually cause crime.

Key Point: Most biological theories suffer from sample bias - they only study caught criminals, not those who got away!

The main criticisms include that biology might create potential for criminality but needs environmental factors to trigger it, most research focuses only on male criminality, and crime varies across cultures - suggesting it's not purely biological.

Psychodynamic Theories

Your childhood experiences might be shaping your adult behaviour more than you think. Freud's psychoanalysis suggests that criminal behaviour stems from unresolved conflicts between the id (desires), ego (reality), and superego (conscience) in your unconscious mind.

According to Freud, anti-social behaviour results from abnormal relationships with parents - whether through neglect, overly harsh discipline, or being too lenient. This creates either a weak superego (no moral compass), an over-harsh one (leading to guilt and self-destructive behaviour), or a deviant one.

Bowlby's maternal deprivation theory focuses specifically on the mother-child bond. He argued that children need a close, continuous relationship with their primary carer from birth to age 5. Breaking this attachment can lead to "affectionless psychopathy" and criminal behaviour.

Evidence Alert: Bowlby's study of 44 juvenile thieves found that 39% had suffered maternal deprivation before age 5, compared to only 5% in the control group.

Eysenck's Personality Theory

Could your personality type predict whether you'll become a criminal? Eysenck believed criminality results from being highly neurotic and highly extraverted - essentially, anxious thrill-seekers who struggle with self-control.

His theory identifies three key dimensions: extraversion (outgoing vs reserved), neuroticism (anxious vs stable), and psychoticism (aggressive vs empathetic). Extraverts have nervous systems that crave stimulation, leading them to seek excitement through rule-breaking.

Neurotics struggle with conditioning - their high anxiety prevents them from learning from punishment effectively. Those high in psychoticism tend to be solitary misfits who lack empathy and may have serious mental health issues.

While some studies support that offenders score high on these dimensions, Farrington's research found that prisoners aren't always extraverted. The theory also relies on potentially unreliable self-report questionnaires.

Critical Thinking: Remember that correlation between personality and crime doesn't prove personality causes criminality - there might be other explanations!

Learning Theories

Crime might be something we pick up like any other skill. Sutherland's differential association theory argues that criminality comes from imitation and learned attitudes in groups that favour law-breaking - essentially, "everyone else is doing it" becomes the justification.

Skinner's operant learning focuses on rewards and punishments. Jeffrey's differential reinforcement theory suggests crime must offer more rewards than punishments for criminals, or they wouldn't keep doing it.

Bandura's social learning theory emphasises learning through observing others, especially high-status role models. His famous Bobo doll study showed children were most likely to copy violent behaviour when they saw the adult being rewarded for it.

These theories explain why crime often runs in families and why juvenile delinquents tend to have antisocial friends. However, they struggle to explain why not everyone exposed to criminal influences becomes criminal themselves.

Key Insight: Learning theories highlight that we're social creatures who learn from others' experiences, not just our own mistakes!

Cognitive Theories

How you think might determine whether you turn to crime. Yochelson and Samenow's criminal personality theory identifies specific thinking errors that make people more likely to offend - including lying, need for power, lack of empathy, and always seeing themselves as victims.

Kohlberg's moral development theory suggests criminals are stuck at less mature levels of moral reasoning. While most adults consider how their actions affect others, criminals only think about immediate rewards and punishments for themselves.

These cognitive approaches have led to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) as a treatment for criminal behaviour, attempting to correct faulty thinking patterns. Thornton and Reid found cognitive theories work better for planned crimes like theft than impulsive violence.

However, both theories have major limitations - Yochelson and Samenow used unrepresentative samples (only institutionalised males), while Kohlberg focused on moral thinking rather than actual moral behaviour.

Treatment Success: The development of CBT from these theories shows how understanding criminal thinking can lead to practical rehabilitation methods.

Functionalist Theories

Believe it or not, Durkheim argued that crime is actually necessary for society to function properly! His functionalist theory suggests crime performs four important functions: boundary maintenance (uniting society against wrongdoers), enabling social change (challenging outdated norms), providing a safety valve (releasing tensions), and acting as a warning light (showing when society needs fixing).

Merton's strain theory focuses on the American Dream gone wrong. When society promotes wealth as the main goal but doesn't give everyone equal opportunities to achieve it legally, this creates strain for working-class people who turn to crime.

Merton identified four deviant adaptations: innovation (accepting the goal but using illegal means), ritualism (giving up on success), retreatism (rejecting both goals and means), and rebellion (replacing society's goals with new ones).

While these theories explain why property crime dominates statistics and why working-class crime rates appear higher, they ignore wealthy people's crimes and assume everyone starts with the same mainstream goals.

Reality Check: Durkheim's theory struggles to define the "right amount" of crime - and crime certainly isn't functional for victims!

Subcultural Theories

Sometimes crime isn't individual rebellion - it's group behaviour. Cohen's status frustration theory explains how working-class boys, failing in school's official status hierarchy, join subcultures that flip society's values upside down. Suddenly, being deviant earns them respect and status.

Cloward and Ohlin identified three types of criminal subcultures based on neighbourhood opportunities: criminal subcultures (professional crime networks offering apprenticeships), conflict subcultures (street gangs using violence for territory and status), and retreatist subcultures (dropouts focused on drug use).

These theories brilliantly show how subcultures solve problems for members who can't succeed legitimately. They also explain different types of illegitimate opportunity structures in various communities.

However, they over-predict working-class crime while ignoring wealthy criminals. They also assume everyone starts wanting mainstream success, but some people might be drawn to crime for completely different reasons.

Gang Reality: Real subcultures are messier than theory suggests - most show characteristics of all three types rather than fitting neat categories.

Interactionism and Labelling Theory

What if crime isn't about the act itself, but about who gets caught and labelled? Interactionism argues that crime is a social construction - no act is inherently criminal until society labels it as such.

Labelling theory distinguishes between primary deviance (minor, unlabelled acts where offenders don't see themselves as criminal) and secondary deviance (behaviour that results from being labelled). Once labelled, the self-fulfilling prophecy kicks in - people live up to their criminal reputation.

Cohen's Mods and Rockers study perfectly illustrates the deviance amplification spiral: media exaggeration creates moral panic, leading to crackdowns that create more arrests and more concern, ultimately increasing rather than reducing deviance.

The theory explains why certain groups are overrepresented in crime statistics and shows how attempts to control deviance can backfire. However, it's deterministic (assuming we have no choice but to live up to labels) and fails to explain why some groups get labelled while others don't.

Media Power: The theory reveals how media reporting and police typifications can actually create the crime patterns they claim to be reporting on!