Critically Analyze the Biological Theories of Criminality

The biological theories of criminality represent core criminological concepts that explain how criminal behavior originates from biological factors. According to these theories, genetic composition, brain features, and biochemical elements act as predisposing factors for criminal behavior. 

The scientific understanding of biological causes of criminal conduct has evolved throughout decades, including the late 19th century and the early 20th century, as well as contemporary research. This paper examines biological explanations of criminal behavior by investigating their advantages and weaknesses in modern criminological research. The goal is to see how biological factors explain criminal behavior while examining whether those theories fully cover crime explanation. 

Biological Theories of Criminality

Early Biological Theories

Cesare Lombroso founded the first substantial biological explanation for criminality around the late 19th century. The founder of the positivist school of criminology is known as Italian physician and criminologist Cesare Lombroso. Lombroso identified criminal-related physical attributes termed “atavistic traits” as residual human evolutionary vestiges for classifying offenders. Lombroso proposed that specific physical traits, including a prominent jaw and high cheekbones,existed in some individuals who were genetically ready to become criminals.

The pioneering work of Lombroso during his time met widespread condemnation from contemporary science. The theory disregarded biological determinants of criminality because it treated criminality as an inherent disposition that ignored environmental influences. Criminological research, together with advances in genetics, has disproven the designs of Lombroso since his scientific methods proved insufficient.

Biochemical Theories

The biochemical approach explains criminal behavior through proposed neurotransmitters, hormones, and other biochemical substance deficiencies. The Serotonin Deficiency Theory is a well-known biochemistry approach because it claims that reduced serotonin messenger chemicals create the potential for impulsive violent conduct. Multiple scientific studies confirm how low serotonin causes aggressive behavior in humans and animals.

Research has identified hormonal imbalances significantly elevated testosterone levels as connectors for aggressive and violent actions among individuals. Testosterone levels representing higher values correlate statistically with an increased chance of criminal conduct as well as violent action, according to specific scientists.

Researchers have highly valued biochemical theories, but critics object to them because they do not sufficiently capture sophisticated human behavioral patterns and outside social elements. Unclear cause-effect relationships exist because these biochemical elements could stem from criminal activities instead of acting as their fundamental basis.

Genetic Theories

Genetic theories about criminal behavior state that people receive genetic predispositions during inheritance that increase their inclination to commit crimes. XYY syndrome is the best-known genetic explanation for antisocial behavior because extra Y chromosomes tend to increase aggression and antisocial tendencies in male individuals. Studies in the past suggested that XYY syndrome prevalence was higher in prisoners. Still, current research demonstrates that both hip theories fail because XYY subjects do not necessarily become criminals, and criminal actors do not display the syndrome.

Contemporary genetic research studies how genes respond when influenced by environmental conditions. Behavioral genetics studies demonstrate how criminal inclination emerges through both natural genetic tendencies and environmental conditions, which may consist of abusive backgrounds and conditions of poverty and exposure to violence. Twin studies and research on adoptees proved successful in determining the hereditary components involved in criminal behavior. Research involving twin studies demonstrates that people with identical genomic backgrounds exhibit more excellent criminal likenesses than individuals with fraternal similarities, showing that genes influence criminality.

The critics who oppose genetic explanations claim these theories describe biological elements to such a degree that they overshadow the considerable impact of environmental and societal factors. The essential dispute regarding nature versus nurture plays a crucial role in such objections to biological explanations of criminality because these explanations fail to account for sociocultural psychological factors of criminal behavior.

neuro criminology

The new scientific field of neuro criminology uses techniques from criminology and neuroscience to investigate brain structures and their operational effects on criminal actions. Scientists studying neuro criminology examine how structural abnormalities within brain areas controlling impulse regulation, emotion management, and decision-making in prefrontal cortex regions make people vulnerable to criminal actions. Brain damage to the prefrontal cortex produces clinical effects such as reduced judgment ability, bad impulse management, and heightened aggressive behaviors. 

Additional scientific studies have identified links between brain chemical processes and criminal actions. Studies have demonstrated that abnormal amygdala activity is linked to violent behavioral conduct. The amygdala is a brain region dedicated to emotional processing. According to research, the brains of people who display antisocial conduct demonstrate both functional and structural abnormalities. 

Neuro criminology enhances criminality research through biological approaches, but it is controversial because some deem the field reductionist and deterministic. Objections against the method exist because it fails to acknowledge personal rights of free choice, socialization elements, and environmental influences in criminal actions. The study of neuroscience remains undiscovered because scientists need to conduct additional research to establish complete knowledge of brain functions linked to criminal activities.

Critical Analysis of Biological Theories

Reductionism And Determinism

Biological theories about criminality are criticized mainly because they show reductionist tendencies and determination features. These enhancement theories diminish the complexity of criminal behavior when they analyze it using biological elements, including genetics, brain structure, and biochemistry. Understanding human actions requires exploring multiple factors beyond biological roots because human choices result from social, psychological, and environmental factors that extend beyond biological elements.

Genetic traits that potentially contribute to criminal behavior do not automatically lead individuals to such conduct. People with genetics linked to aggression still fail to pursue criminal activities when they develop in supportive domestic settings. Biology cannot sufficiently explain criminality since personal freedom, social circumstances, and individual disciplinary measures remain vital in understanding criminal conduct.

Ethical And Social Implications

Implementing biological criminality theories leads to various enduring moral issues. Biological explanations of criminal activities can stigmatize specific individuals because certain groups with criminal-associated genetic markers might become targets for discrimination. Genetic profiling methods and the over-enforcement of specific communities may stem from such biological theories of criminality.

When biological theories are employed in the criminal justice system, the fundamental principle of personal responsibility could potentially diminish. When people believe crime is determined by biology, they might consider offenders less responsible for their criminal behavior. Punishment and rehabilitation strategies within the criminal justice system face significant doubts about their equity and capability to achieve their objectives.

Overlooking Social And Environmental Factors

The main drawback of biological theories arises from their dismissive approach toward understanding how social elements and environmental conditions influence criminal conduct. Experts have extensively confirmed that factors like poverty, along with inadequate education and forces of violence and dysfunctional families, increase the risk for criminality. These biological theories disregard the vigorous societal influences shaping criminal activity appropriately.

University research demonstrates that people from economically deprived violent areas develop higher criminal tendencies than genetic or biological characteristics could explain. Contempt for environmental factors reduces the success of programs designed to explore criminal reasons.

Conclusion

The biological approaches to criminality have provided essential knowledge about how genetics, brain functioning, and biochemical elements help determine criminal patterns. However, these explanations face critical restrictive factors in their application to understanding criminal behavior. The reductionist approach combined with determinism in these theories leads to oversimplified views of human behavior, while biological determinants diminish social and psychological aspects that better explain criminality. Developing an entire understanding of criminal behavior requires scientists to study both biological effects and social-cultural influences. 
The environment, personal choices, and social structures play an equal or more substantial role than biological factors in influencing behavioral outcomes. Research in criminology must achieve an equilibrium between biological foundations and sociological, psychological, and environmental factors to establish comprehensive criminal behavior models. Biological factors are potential influences on criminal behavior, yet they remain insufficient to explain the intricacy of criminal acts.