The science of Criminology is a relatively new field of science (Siegel, 2010). The beginnings of real criminology are noted with the Classical school of thought, whose scholars hypothesized that crime, is a result of the discerning decision and can be controlled with prevention strategies. (Hall, 2013) Since that time criminologists have developed, exacerbated, or grown new thoughts of why individuals perpetrate crime, including speculations that lead to biological, psychological, and sociological reasons for crime which we will discuss further. (Siegel, 2010)
Some of the first attempts to explain crime were essentially biological in nature. Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso, who worked in the 1870-ies, believed that criminal types could be identified by the shape of the skull. It was agreed that the society can influence criminal behavior, but regarded most criminals as biologically degenerate or defective. The ideas Lombroso has long been hopelessly discredited, but such views were put forward again and again. Another popular method, which tried to demonstrate the influence of heredity on crime trends, was to study pedigrees. But it does not actually prove the influence of heredity, because it is impossible to separate inherited from environmental exposure.
One of the more recent theories have distinguished between three main types of human bodily structure and proclaimed that one of them is directly associated with delinquency. Muscular, active types (mesomorphy), claimed the theory, likely to become criminals than the fragile types (ectomorph) or more smooth (endomorphy) (Rafter, Posick, & Rocque, 2016). Such views are also widely criticized. Even if there really existed some relationships between body build and criminal tendencies, it would not have had any relation to the influence of heredity. People muscular type can be prone to all sorts of offences just because they give the opportunity to apply their force. Moreover, almost all studies in this area was limited to the environment of juvenile offenders in correctional facilities, and it is possible that thicker, athletic in appearance, offenders are more likely to be sent to such correctional institutions than fragile and thin. Some individuals may be prone to irritability and aggressiveness, and it can sometimes encourage them to physical attacks on others. However, we do not have conclusive evidence that these personality traits are passed in inheritance, but even if passed, their relationship with criminal tendencies can only be very remote.
As biological explanation, psychological theories of criminality associated with those of certain personality types. Some researchers have speculated that immoral, psychopathic personality develops in a minority of individuals. Psychopath - is locked in itself, devoid of emotions the characters that resort to violence for the sake of violence. Individuals with psychopathic traits sometimes really do violent crimes, but the notion of a psychopath involves a lot of problems. It is not clear that psychopathic traits have to be criminal. Almost all studies of people with limited range of characteristics of convicted prisoners, and the personality of these people are usually served in a negative light. If we describe these same characteristics in a positive perspective, these types of person has a completely different look, and hardly have any reason to believe that people by nature endowed with criminal tendencies.
Psychological theories of crime can, at best case, explain only a few aspects of the crime. While some criminals really are traits that distinguish them from the rest of the population, it is unlikely that such traits endowed with most offenders. There are many varieties of criminal acts, and nothing to suggest that those who do them have some specific psychological characteristics. (Wortley, 2011) Even if we restrict our consideration one category of crimes such as violence, you can select many different circumstances. Such crimes are committed as loners and organized groups. It is unlikely that psychological inclinations of people acting independently had much in common with the psychological tendencies cohesive gang members. Even if we were able to link certain differences with certain criminal characteristics, we cannot prove causality dependence is aimed in the wrong direction and not the opposite. It is likely that this connection with a criminal gang affect the appearance or character of man, not the character or appearance of forming criminal behavior.
References
Hall, E. (2013). A Biological, Psychological, and Sociological Examination of Crime Causation. Criminologyjust.blogspot.com. Retrieved 9 January 2017, from http://criminologyjust.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-biological-psychological-and.html
Rafter, N., Posick, C., & Rocque, M. (2016). The Criminal Brain: Understanding Biological Theories of Crime (1st ed.). New York: New York University Press.
Siegel, L. (2010). Criminology: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies. (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Wortley, R. (2011). Psychological Criminology: An Integrative Approach (1st ed.). London: Routledge.
