Lombroso’s theory can no longer be taken seriously do you agree
Cesare Lombroso was an Italian criminologist (1835-1909), he devised a theory that criminality is a psychological trait, however if someone has a criminal mind, this can be recognised by their appearance. Cesare believed that you could tell the difference between criminals and non-criminals depending on their physical attributes. Can an individual’s appearance determine whether they are likely to be a criminal offender? Modern criminology now outmodes this old fashioned theory, so; can Lombroso’s theory be taken seriously in this day an age?
Cesare Lombroso was born in Verona, Italy; he became renowned worldwide for his studies in the field of characterology; the relationship between physical and mental characteristics. Lombroso tried to link characteristics such as jaw size to psychopathology, sociapathy and general criminal behaviour.
Lombroso’s theory is a direct descendent of phrenology, which was created by the German physician Franz Joseph Gall. Phrenology looks closely at the surface of ones head. If an individual possessed bumps in certain parts of the cranium, this may indicate a criminal mentality. The basis of phrenology was a large part of the inspiration for Lombroso’s theory.
He also looked closely at craniology and physiognomy. Lombroso went on to study at the universities of Padua, Vienna and Paris, and then later (1862-1876) became a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pavia. He was also a professor at the University of Turin where he lectured criminal anthropology as well as being the director of an asylum in Pesaro, Italy.
Lombroso’s main theoretical ideas were inspired by the evolutionary and genetical studies carried out in the early nineteenth century. He believed that certain criminals had physical evidence of an atavist (reappearance of characteristics which were only present in distant ascendants), or hereditary attributes, reminiscent of earlier more primitive stages of human evolution.
These anomalies (named by Lombroso as stigmata) could be expressed in abnormal forms or dimensions of the skull, the jaw, within the entities face and various other parts of the body, such as; in the limbs, shoulders etc. however this theory later became scientifically proven to be highly inconsistent, or more plainly inexistent.
So, how accurate was Lombroso’s theory? Well Lombroso may have had the merit of bringing up the importance of scientific studies into the criminal mind, (this particular field became known as criminal anthropology) but environmental causation of criminality soon came to dominate this field, excluding Lombroso’s ideas and eventually Cesare Lombroso was scientifically discredited.
During the 20th century many criminologists had their own theories and conclusions toward criminality, this time the evidence was based more on the biological inheritance or the genetics. As one example; in the 1970’s Osbourne& West studied criminal statistics and concluded that two out of five boys with parents who had criminal records, would grow up to become criminals themselves. Yet just one out of eight boys without criminal parents would become offenders of the law.
However their results could link to pear pressure, upbringing, role models, and teenage rebellion etc, not just the genetics. By looking pacifically at the genetics only, can this determine criminality?
In 1977 Denmark, Christenson studied the genetics of six thousand twins. Looking for concordance; he found that 36% of identical twins were likely to become criminals, yet with non identical twins only 12% percent were expected to become criminals.
Bohman in 1995 also excluded the environmental causation of criminality. He investigated adoption and found that; if an adopted child had biological parents obtaining a criminal record then that child is 40% probable of one day having a criminal record themselves. Despite the fact that the child hasn’t been brought up by his or her biological parents.
According to genetics the typical man has the XY chromosome but some men carry the extra y in their chromosomes, creating the XYY chromosome. The added Y to a male chromosome became known as the criminal gene. In 1966 ‘Price’ studied Scottish convicts and discovered the XYY pattern in a huge number of them.
Price stereotyped men with the extra Y chromosome as having; excess aggression, much greed and a lack of intelligence.
Personally the opinions of many criminologists are merely theoretical explanations for criminality. The strongest areas of the criminal psyche that need to be studied are the backgrounds of the offenders. Rather than solely focusing on a person’s genetics or physical appearance; there needs to be more focus on the criminal’s childhood, the area they lived in, the family relationships etc, and of course whether there are logical and maybe understandable reasons as for why someone may take the criminal path.
In the modern world; fingerprinting is a good way of identifying criminals. Some have created their own theories based on the genetics found within fingerprints. Maybe there is some truth to all of these biological answers to criminality. However I do not agree that these explanations will always be accurate.
Cesare Lombroso had a theory that has now scientifically proved to be inaccurate and stereotypical. Lombroso would suggest that someone with bumps in certain parts of the head, scaring and other particular features would be somehow scientifically disorientated. They would be evolutionary throwbacks. Lombroso’s theory can no longer be taken seriously, I agree.
