1state the strengths of Lombrosso's physiological theory of crime
- his research showed importance of examining clinical and historical records of criminality, meaning we can see which factor contribute to criminal behaviour
- his later work took some limited account of social and environmental factors, not just hereditary ones
- helped us focus on how to prevent further reoffendings rather than simply punishing offenders by showing that they aren't freely choosing to commit crime
2state the limitations of Lombrosso's physiological theory of crime
- he didn't show a clear link between facial features and criminality
- many of the atavistic features mentioned are specific to people of African descent. This is scientific racism.
- he failed to compare findings on prisoners with a control group of non-criminals. If he did he would of found the same characteristics among the general population, making his explanation invalid
3state the strengths of Sheldon's physiological theory of crime
- other studies back up findings. Glueck and Glueck found 60% of the offenders in their study were mesomorphs. They were able to replicate Sheldon's findings.
- Most serious delinquents in Sheldon's sample were the ones with the most extreme mesomorphic body shapes
4state the limitations of Sheldon's physiological theory of crime
- didn't conside the nurture aspect. Glueck and Glueck found that criminaliity was best explained nit by biology alone, but by a combonation of biological, psychological and environmental factors.
- social class may be true cause of both offending and mesomorphy. Convicted offenders are maily working-class males, who are more likelt to be in manual jobs where they aquire an athletic body build
- labelling may play a part. Mesomorphs may be labelled troublemakers as they fit a stereotype, leading to a self-fufllilling prohecy. Or may attract more police attention and get caught more than other somatotypes.
5State the strengths of twin studies
- bc MZ twins are identical, it is logical to examine whether their offending behaviour is also identical
- it gives some support to gentic explanations. Ishikawa and Raine found a higher concordance rate for identical twins than non-identical twins
6state the limitation of twin studies
- it's impossible to isolate and measure the effect of genes without the effect of environmenr.
- identical twins are treated more alike than non-identical twins. I.T. may be clloser than N.I. and so one criminal twin may be able to infuelence the other more
- higher C.R. in I.T. may be due to sharing same home/ school etc. Their shared environment might cause similarities in their criminal behaviour, not identiccal genes
- i n early studies, there was no way of knowing for certain if twins were in fact genetically identical, since DNA testing did not exist.
7state the strengths of adoption studies
- findings give some support to genetic explanations. shows adoptees were more likely to have criminal records if their bio parents had criminal records
- allpws us to see the influenxd of genes separate from environment. Unlike twin studies.
- research design is logical. Theory allows us to see the importance of “nature” vs “nurture”
8state the limitations of adoption studies
- Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that adoption studies show genes have little effect on criminality
- adopted children are often placed in environments similar to that of their birth family e.g. families of same class/ ethnicity/ location etc. Similar environments may produce similar behaviour
- many children are not adopted immediately after birth but remain with their bio family for some time. This early environment may be the true cause of their criminality
9state the strengths lf XYY syndrome
- jacob et al found an assocation between XYY syndrome and offenders imprisoned for violent behaviour
- Price and Whatmore found some links between the syndroms and property crime
10state the limitations lf XYY syndrome
- even if some violent offenders have the syndrome, it doesnt prove it is the cause of their violence
- syndrome very rare (only about 1 in 1000 men have it), so it cannot explain much crime.
- XYY males are tall and well built so fit the stereotype, get labelled and more likely to get prison sentence. Means XYY males are over-represented in samples that state syndrome is possible cause of crime
- XYY may be over-represented in prison because they often have low intelligence, meaning they are more likely to be caught.
11state the strengths of brain injuries and disorders
- in a few extreme cases, brain jnjury or disease has led to major changes in an individual’s personality and behaviour, including criminality
- prisoners are more likely than non-prisoners to bave a brain injury
- some correlation between abnormal EEG readings and psychopathic criminality
12state the limitations of brain injuries and disorders
- crimes caused by brain injury or disease are rare. The sufferer’s original personality is more important in whether they engage in crime
- prisoners’ higher likelihood of brain injury could be a result of their criminality (e.g. getting in fights), rather than a cause of it
- not clear that abnormal brainwave activity caused psychopathic criminality. Some psychopaths have normal EEG and some normal peoppe have abnormal EEG patterns
13state the strengths of biochemical explanations