Criminality: Criminology and Extra Y Chromosome Essay Example

such a theory then, criminality can be understood using various sociological contexts. Through this we will attempt to understand or explain criminality and whether criminals are born or made. Beginning over a hundred years ago in the late 18th century social and criminal anthropologists began to speculate at the causes of criminality and delinquency and set about to investigate. There are still many disagreements connected with the definition of criminality as sociologists and anthropologists struggled to understand and attempt to produce a universal understanding of criminality.Most theorists at the time believed that it had to be a deep-rooted trait, or an innate tendency. Over the years that followed, many other sociologists and psychologists have tried to determine this complicated question.

Some sociologists and psychologists would remain on the side of biological causes, and some would look further into environmental and social causes. There are many factors surrounding the arguments for all sides, a few of which will be addressed.Known as the father of criminology, Lombroso studied phys¬ical characteristics of convicted prisoners and found that there were many physical features that were common among criminals. Though he later modified his views, he originally concluded that what was common to the criminals that he studied were their atavistic or primitive features such as: receding foreheads, prom¬inent chins, and long arms. He would describe these criminals as either insane or "criminaloid" (criminal types).

He further maintained that their criminal tendencies were the result of these inherited characteristics.Lombroso believed that a particular physical characteristic or attribute could predict criminality, thus creating a “born” criminal. Lombroso theorized, a result of certain atavisms whereby the criminal would be both mentally and

physically inferior to normal human beings, and that they would bear a resemblance to our predecessor, the ape. He used certain physical characteristics as indicators of criminality, and measured them. If a person were to portray five or more of these atavisms, then they were seen to be a born criminal. He also added other factors to this theory, including that of an excessive use of tattooing and excessive idleness.

In 1894, Enrico Ferri, who was a follower of Lombroso's, his research for the first time linked crime and social class. In 1901, Enrico Ferri, one of the fathers of positivist criminology, was invited to deliver a series of lectures at the University of Naples. Ferri used the occasion to admonish classical criminologists and to advance the principles of positivism. (2) He approached the study of criminals from a sociological perspec¬tive, that is, by studying the criminal's relationship to society rather than the criminal's individual personality or physical traits.

He also recommended that society focus on the preven¬tion rather than the punishment of crime. William Sheldon had similar ideas, however these were mainly based around body types. He described three basic body types and different temperaments that corresponded with them. These were: Endomorphs who would be soft and round with relaxed personalities; Mesomorphs who were athletic and tended to be aggressive; and finally Ectomorphs who were thin frail and introverted.Sheldon rated these physical attributes in any given individual, and gave ratings of 1 – 7 to indicate the degree of each body type they possessed then the person would be given a three-digit rating showing his or her possession of these characteristics.

Sheldon compared these ratings between

a group of 200 male delinquents, against 200 non-delinquent students. He found that the delinquents were significantly higher in mesomorphy and lower in ectomorphy. He concluded that a Mesomorph was the one most likely to be a criminal.Other studies were based around heredity, by Francis Galton and were set up to measure degrees of resemblance or association.

Charles Goring used these new statistical techniques in the analysis of criminality. He concluded that crime was inherited much in the same way as ordinary physical traits and features. He also found that those with frequent and lengthy terms of imprisonment were physically smaller and less intelligent than other people and although there could be a distinct environmental explanation for this, Goring believed that these were primarily inherited characteristics.As you can imagine, there are many criticisms of these theories, mainly that a majority of Lombrosso’s atavisms could describe almost any ethnic minority, and any fit or sporty person in Sheldon’s books, would be delinquent. Lombrosso’s theory however, was very popular at the turn of the century and dispelled any theories that a person became criminal, simply because they fell victim to unfortunate social circumstances.

However, the International Congress of Criminal Anthropology was critical of this.They believed that the origins of crime lay in social conditions rather than with innate tendencies. This however was initially a dangerous tact as it bred a belief that the prevention of crime required the development of eugenics, whereby state agencies could implement programs of social and moral improvement through breeding. Lombroso’s theories began to unravel when several weaknesses were discovered in his research. Virtually all of Lombroso’s presumptions were based on studies performed

only on convicted criminals.He did not use a control group to which he could compare his results.

Therefore, his conclusions could not be broadened to include the general population as a whole. This basic flaw in his research came to be known as “the Lombrosian fallacy. ” Years later, Charles Goring, an English physician who took an interest in Lombroso’s theories, decided to examine more closely some of his conclusions. Goring studied thousands of prisoners in British jails.

He compared their physiological traits to members of a military unit, the Royal Engineers.Goring found no substantial differences between the two groups. He published the results in a book called The English Convict in 1913. Goring proved that atavism had no scientific support and the data he gathered essentially discredited Lombroso’s idea of a “born criminal” forever. (3) This kind of genetic engineering was dependent on chromosomal studies. Patricia Jacobs held one of the first studies of this kind in a maximum-security prison in Scotland.

They found that a statistically considerable percentage of men had an extra Y chromosome.Normal patterns are XX for females and XY for males yet this study found that the subnormal wing of the hospital had patients with XYY patterns. Jacobs described these men as having dangerous, violent or criminal predispositions. This was seen as a breakthrough but since then the extra Y chromosome has been found in the general population also, in non-criminal members of society. In the 1960s, researchers found several genetic abnormalities that they believed pointed to the cause of violent behavior.

The "XYY" syndrome was one theory that has since been disre¬garded.Normal males are born with one male (Y)

and one female (X) chromosome; those one in 1,000 males who are born with an extra Y chromosome were found to be dis¬proportionately represented in the prison population. Those who discount this theory believe that men with an extra Y chromosome are also larger and more threatening than others, and are therefore more likely to come to the attention of author¬ities than others. (4) Nevertheless these three theories do not explain the reasons why poorer areas of society have more criminals, or the theories that chemical imbalances are to blame.This directs us to environmental theories of criminality, or that criminals are made.

There have also been many studies into the effects of certain vitamins and minerals and their toxic effects in relation to criminality. Unemployment, poverty, and class are also social issues connected closely with crime and delinquent behavior. Some found that crime was closely connected to poverty. However there are many people who are materially poor and have no crime, therefore poverty itself does not cause crime but is only a factor.

There is also evidence now that suggests that criminality is linked to economic and income discrimination.Some also found unemployment to be a significant factor when it came to property crime for example. The poor, the unem¬ployed, or the "underclass" are more likely than the well to do, the employed, or the "respectable poor" to commit certain kinds of crimes. We are reluc¬tant, however, at least at the outset, to use class as a major category of explanations of differences in criminality for two reasons. First, scholars who readily agree on the importance of age, sex, and place as factors related to crime

disagree vigorously as to whether social class, however defined, is associated with crime.

Our second reason for not starting with class as a major social factor is, to us, more important, unlike sex, age, and place, class is an ambiguous concept. A "lower class" person can be one who has a low income, but that definition lumps together graduate students, old age pensioners, welfare mothers, and unemployed steelworkers individuals who would appear to have, as far as crime is concerned, little in common. (5) They also found that delinquency is inversely related to unemployment; that is, delinquency is high when unemployment is low, and vice versa.They suggested that this might be due to the fact that in times of unemployment, parents are more available to their children.

However, it is young adults who are most likely to have criminal tendencies if they are also unemployed. It is therefore a very complex and ongoing argument about whether criminals are born, or made. Goring continued his studies into criminality and eventually proposes that it was not caused by either the environment or heredity, but as the result of an interaction between the two. A view that is held by many criminologists today.

He did however still favor heredity issue. Despite this, it can certainly be shown that modern studies and theories are much more in favor of environmental causes of criminality, causes that can be controlled and repressed. In addition to the theories we have discussed, there are many others on the side of environmental factors, such as labeling, and learning theories tested by psychologists like Albert Bandura and B. F. Skinner showing how criminality can be conditioned. Bandura

developed a theory called the modeling theory of aggression.

Modeling theory, a form of social learning theory, asserts that people learn how to act by observing others. In some of his early work, Bandura experimented with children who observed adult role models striking inflatable cartoon characters. When the children were observed following their encounter with adult behavior, they too exhibited similarly aggressive behavior. Bandura also studied violence on television and concluded that "television is an effective tutor. (6) One the best-known supporter of the behavior theory is B.

F. Skinner. Skinner focused on patterns of responses to external rewards and stimuli. It is the constant reinforcement and punishment in a persons learning history, which will determine whether there will be criminal behavior or not. Therefore when a crime has been committed and the subject receives a reward (positive reinforcement) for committing the actual offense. The effects of poverty, in both urban and rural settings, can be destructive to the desires and ambitions of those who continue to struggle for a better life.

Although we live in a prosperous country, poverty is a reality for several million people living in America. The gap between the rich and poor is getting bigger and nowhere is it more prevalent and visible than in our cities. Since World War II, several factors have led to the current crisis of poverty, unemployment, and crime in our cities. Employment in manufacturing for city populations has decreased more than 10% since 1947, when almost 30% were employed in factories.

At the same time, full time employ¬ment in service industries, such as finance, real estate and insurance, has increased from 13% to 28%.Jobs that require less

than a high school diploma decreased from 52% to 21%, while the high school dropout rate in the cities grew to about 40%, making more and more city dwellers unqualified for the new service related jobs. (7) Standards of behavior are both a product of our living together and a requirement if social life is to be orderly. If crime is seen as a person’s response to social conditions, then the conditions of poverty, which could include poor schooling, insufficient supervision, poor self esteem, bad diet, and violent behavior, both observed and experienced, often lead to riminal behavior.

When these conditions exist for middle class children, there are usually more options that are available to balance the harmful effects of these experiences. There are and can be referrals to a specialized school instead of juvenile court, a youth diversion programs and a enormous assortment of educational and recreational means for the incredible amount of free time on the hands of juveniles. For centuries, crime and criminality has been seen as an act of individual deviance and disobedience against the laws of God and King.No thought was ever given to the social circumstances surrounding the individual that committed the crime Karl Marx whose writings were largely related to economic and social topics, did have a impact in criminology by making the first step toward a more impartial look at criminality by taking into account the social implications that forced a individual to commit crimes. Marx wrote very little on crime and criminality, but he did write, Class Conflict and Law, this along with his writings on class conflict and economics, provided a philosophy that was every

bit as radical as his economic writings.

Radical criminology, which appeared on the American scene in the 1970’s, has its roots in the writings of nineteenth-century social utopian thinkers. Primary among them is Karl Marx, whose writings on the conflicts inherent in capitalism led to the formulation of communist ideals and, many would say, to the rise of communist societies the world over. (8) Marx put social crimes and illegal behavior on a level that street crime is traditionally placed. Marx saw no difference between a factory worker being downsized by shrinking corporate profits and the traditional view of robbery.By downsizing the worker for the sake of preserving the surplus value of labor, the capitalists (bourgeoisie) creates an environment where the worker (proletariat) must resort to criminality for both survival, and as an act of protest and disobedience to the industrialist system that controls him.

While Marx himself never really addressed in detail the criminal justice system’s specific role in keeping such a system in place, from his writings a radical tradition has emerged.Marxists criminology is started from a philosophy that seeks social justice for the majority of workers whom Marx felt were left out of the success of capitalist societies through mistreatment of their labor. From their radical roots, Marxism became the groundwork of the Communist movement, and through the expansion of Communism after the Second World War, a philosophy that was the basis for government for governments across the globe. Marxists claims that traditional methods cannot be used to gauge the success of Marxist criminology.

This is exactly why Marxism had failed. No one can relate it to his or her own personal beliefs.Certain

segments might appear or seem somewhat logical, however, when taken as a whole Marxism as a way of living cannot and will not be fully understood by the very same people that Marxism is trying to reach. Marxism must therefore be looked at as a failure and immaterial thinking in current criminological theory. In conclusion there is no one cause of crime.

Any number of reasons can cause criminality, such as poverty, inadequate supervision, abusive parenting, racism, self-hatred, impulsive behaviors are but a few of the underlying social causes of the many crimes committed every day.No one single issue alone causes a person to become a criminal or can completely account for the number of different types of criminal behavior. There is no evidence that has ever linked a particular race or ethnic group with criminal tendencies. If a conclusion can be reached, it would be that the causes of criminal behavior appear to be interrelated.

It is difficult, for example, to separate the effects of racism from lack of job opportunities, or poor school performance from inadequate nutrition.The combination of several factors, economic and biological for example, might trigger one person's tendency to become involved in crime. It could be an imbalance in their genetic make-up caused by a lack of vitamins or exposure to certain minerals. With today’s large amount of chemical substances, enhancers, and habit forming hobbies; conjoined with poor living conditions, conditioned morals and lifestyles; and lack of wealth and education, that criminality is certainly not an innate tendency, but a lifestyle imposed upon certain individuals by their environment.It is therefore much more likely, taking into account the evidence we have

seen on behalf of both biological and environmental factors that it is a fact that criminals are made and not born. But whatever the causes or set of causes is, the fact is that the United States has a serious crime problem that directly or indirectly affects all of us at one time or another.

Once a crime has been committed, it is the job of the judicial system to determine the guilt or inno¬cence of an individual and the appropriate punishment. Our complex system of justice must protect the community as well as the individual who is accused of a crime.Works Cited (1) Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States 2002 Crime Factors [Web Site] ;http://www. fbi. gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/crimefactors. html; [Accessed 1, March 2004] (2)Dr.

Frank Schmalleger. Criminology Today Third Edition (Pearson publishing, 2002) 144 (3)Mark Gado. Bad to the Bone. Chapter 4 [Web Page] [Web Site] http://www. crimelibrary.

com/criminal_mind/psychology/ crime_motivation/4. html? sect=19; [Accessed 8, March 2004] (4)Marianne LeVert. Crime; (American Issues Series) The Philip Lief Group Inc. (New York, NY) 1991.

91-92 (5)Richard J.Herrnstein. Crime and Human Nature. Simon and Schuster (New York, NY) 1985, 27-28 (6)Schmalleger (184) (7)LeVert (100) (8)Schmalleger (264-265) Bibliography Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States 2002 Crime Factors [Web Site] ;http://www. fbi.

gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/crimefactors. html; [Accessed 1, March 2004] Ferro, Jeffrey. Crime: A Serious American Problem Thomson/Gale Publishing (Detroit, MI) 2002 Finsterbusch Kurt. Taking sides; Clashing views on controversial social issues Dushkin Publishing Group (Guilford, CT) 1996 Gado, Mark.

Bad to the Bone.Chapter 4 [Web Page] [Web Site] http://www. crimelibrary. com/criminal_mind/psychology/ crime_motivation/4. html? sect=19; [Accessed 8, March 2004] Herrnstein, Richard J. Crime and Human Nature.

Simon

and Schuster (New York, NY) 1985, 27-28 Kender, Suzanne. Crime in America H. W. Wilson Co.

(New York, NY)1996 LeVert, Marianne. Crime; (American Issues Series) The Philip Lief Group Inc. (New York, NY) 1991. 91-92 Schmalleger, Dr. Frank.

Criminology Today Third Edition (Pearson publishing, 2002) 144 Yochelson, Samuel. The Criminal Personality Jason Aronson (New York, NY) 1976