Table of Contents |
The concept of strict biological trait theory, suggesting that certain traits associated with criminal behavior are solely determined by genetics, is no longer accepted. Many characteristics believed to be inherited may not be genetically determined but could be influenced by factors like deprivation in one’s surroundings. Poverty, education, family dynamics, and community influences are considered contributors, and a sole focus on biological factors may divert attention from addressing these issues.
The idea that most criminals share specific biological traits is questioned, as these traits may result from environmental conditions, such as inadequate nutrition, rather than solely hereditary factors. The justice system may have thus labeled and punished individuals based on their unusual appearance rather than actual behavior (Siegel, 2023).
There are ethical concerns associated with labeling certain biological traits as “criminal” or individuals predisposed to criminality based on their genetic makeup (Bedoya & Portnoy, 2023). It raises issues of stigmatization, which occurs when individuals are labeled as deviant or socially undesirable, leading to negative stereotypes and social exclusion.
Due to these shortcomings, the credibility of a purely biological explanation for criminality is now doubted and no longer considered valid. Contemporary criminologists propose that environmental conditions interact with human traits and circumstances, collectively shaping behavior. This perspective has led to the term “biosocial theory,” highlighting the connection between physical and mental characteristics, the social environment, and behavior.
Even though biosocial theory is currently more recognized than biological trait theory, there are some elements that are still criticized.
One critique is that the theory falls short in explaining human behavior, as it neglects the influences of the mind and culture (Crossman, 2018). The contention is that biosocial theory fails to provide a comprehensive understanding of human behavior by neglecting the significant contributions of mental processes and cultural contexts that influence behavior. This critique suggests that a more comprehensive approach should take into account the interplay between biological, psychological, and cultural factors to fully explain human behavior.
Another criticism revolves around sociobiology’s continued reliance on genetic determinism, implying an acceptance of the existing social order. Critics argue that if male aggression is considered genetically predetermined and beneficial for reproduction, it implies a biologically predetermined reality beyond our control (Crossman, 2018). In other words, if aggression in men is seen as a trait encoded in their genes and beneficial for reproductive success, it implies that this behavior is driven by biological factors and not easily subject to conscious control or societal influence. This perspective raises questions about the extent to which certain behaviors are inherent and predetermined by genetics, as opposed to being shaped by environmental and cultural factors.
Despite these limitations, biosocial theory is still more widely recognized than strict biological trait theory.
| Concepts | Proponents | Assumptions | Limitations | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biological Trait Theory | Genetics; physiological characteristics | Cesare Lombroso | Biological factors contribute to criminality. |
Biological theories have been linked to biological determinism and racism. These theories neglect the role that sociological and environmental factors play in determining if someone commits a crime. |
| Biosocial Theory | Biochemical conditions; diet; hormones; environmental contaminants | Edward Wilson | Biological factors interact with social and environmental factors to produce crime. |
There is still a reliance on biological determinism. This theory neglects the mental processes related to committing crimes. |
REFERENCES
Bedoya, A., & Portnoy, J. (2023). Biosocial criminology: History, theory, research evidence, and policy. Victims & Offenders, 18(8), 1599–1629. doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2022.2133035
Crossman, A. (2018, January 11). Overview of sociobiology theory. ThoughtCo. www.thoughtco.com/sociobiology-3026631
Siegel, L. J. (2023). Criminology (8th ed.). Cengage.
