Theories of Crime

Lombroso (1876) claimed that criminals constituted a biologically distinct class of people united by primitive characteristics such as strong jaws, low brows and lower than average intelligence. He went as far as to say that different subtypes of criminal could be identified through such characteristics, for example murderers were said to have bloodshot eyes, strong jaws and curly hair whereas sex offenders tended to have thick lips and projecting ears. Although Lombroso is regarded by many researchers as the father of criminology for his insistence on the scientific method, his theory of criminal types is fundamentally flawed for several reasons, including the lack of a control group to establish whether the characteristics he identified as criminal occurred in the non-criminal population. Another theory of criminality which stresses the importance of physical appearance was put forward by Sheldon (1949) who tried to link criminal behaviour to bodily build or somatotype. According to Sheldon, there are three basic body types: endomorphs (fat), ectomorphs (thin) and mesomorphs (muscular). He claimed that each body type was linked to a certain temperament and set of personality traits. Sheldon reasoned that the energetic and adventurous temperament of mesomorphs might lead to them becoming active in criminal activity. Sheldon gained positive results from his research, however his methods were questioned and when the study was repeated, the association between mesomorphy and delinquency was no longer present. Psychoanalytical theories of crime stem from the Freudian idea of a three-part personality. At the root of the psyche is the id, which generates self-serving and pleasure-seeking impulses, redirected by the ego which is planted in reality, which in turn is guided by the superego, the moral part of the psyche. A well-adjusted person is able to satisfy the id in a way that is morally acceptable to the superego. It follows that someone with a dysfunctional superego caused by issues with their family during childhood will exhibit antisocial behaviour. Blackburn (1993) said that criminal behaviour could be the result of a superego that is over-harsh, weak or deviant. It is easy to dismiss psychoanalytical theory because they are unscientific, and while psychoanalytic research has provided useful pointers to later theorists of crime, it is rarely used on its own to explain criminal behaviour. Social learning theory is chiefly associated with the work of Albert Bandura, and is an alternative approach to the acquisition of criminal behaviour. Bandura suggests that all types of behaviour are learned by observing others. If this behaviour is reinforced, the observer is more likely to imitate them, whereas punishment is a deterrent. This applies to criminal behaviour as it does any other. SLT has contributed to the understanding of criminal behaviour through Banduras (1963) study which demonstrated that young children could acquire aggressive behaviours through the observation of an adult model. Though SLT has been criticised for largely being based in laboratory studies and underplaying the role of cognitive function and decision making, it outlines the uniqueness of the individual and that people may commit the same crime for different reasons. Labelling theory is based on the idea that societys reaction to deviance has future consequences for the future behaviour of the deviant person. Society defines certain acts as criminal, and a person who commits such acts is labelled as a criminal. Because the person is then treated by society as such, they may come to adopt the label as part of their self-image and this affects their future behaviour. Studies such as Ageston and Elliot (1974) support this view, however, the theory does not explain the initial criminal act performed by the individual.