Crime Theory 1200 words and three scholarly references

camkai3

https___dftj9wb4gc6c5.cloudfront.net_Bethel_Courses_CCJ_4100_Unit_3_read1.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Crime Theory 1200 words and three scholarly references

ROBERT M. BOHM University of Central Florida

and

BRENDA L. VOGEL California State University, Long Beach

A Primer on Crime and Delinquency Theory

T H I R D E D I T I O N

Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

This is an electronic version of the print textbook. Due to electronic rights restrictions, some third party content may be suppressed. Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. The publisher reserves the right to remove content from this title at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. For valuable information on pricing, previous editions, changes to current editions, and alternate formats, please visit www.cengage.com/highered to search by ISBN#, author, title, or keyword for materials in your areas of interest.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10

A Primer on Crime and Delinquency Theory, Third Edition Robert M. Bohm, Brenda L. Vogel

Editor: Carolyn Henderson-Meier

Editorial Assistant: John Chell

Media Editor: Andy Yap

Marketing Manager: Michelle Williams

Marketing Communications Manager: Laura Localio

Content Project Manager: Pre-PressPMG

Art Director: Maria Epes

Print Buyer: Linda Hsu

Permissions Editor: Roberta Broyer

Production Service: Pre-PressPMG

Text Designer: Pre-PressPMG

Cover Designer: Riezebos Holzbaur/Brie Hattey

Cover Image: Corbis Yellow

Compositor: Pre-PressPMG

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution, information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

For product information and technology assistance, contact us at Cengage Learning

Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706

For permission to use material from this text or product, submit all requests online at cengage.com/permissions

Further permissions questions can be emailed to [email protected]

Library of Congress Control Number: 2010926703

ISBN-13: 978-0-495-80750-6

ISBN-10: 0-495-80750-8

Wadsworth 20 Davis Drive Belmont, CA 94002-3098 USA

Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solutions with office locations around the globe, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, and Japan. Locate your local office at www.cengage.com/global

Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd.

To learn more about Wadsworth, visit www.cengage.com/Wadsworth

Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred online store www.cengagebrain.com

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Positivist Theories

Positive Philosophy

The Influence of Empirical or Experimental Science

Major Differences between Positivism and Classicism/Neoclassicism

General Problems with Positivist Theories

T he theories of the positivist school of criminology grew out of positive philo-sophy and the logic and methodology of empirical or experimental science. Positive philosophy was an explicit repudiation or reaction to the critical and “negative” philosophy of the Enlightenment thinkers, which according to positi- vists, questioned anything that was held to be an “objective truth,” challenged the existing order, and promoted revolution.

P O S I T I V E P H I L O S O P H Y

Positive philosophy emerged during a time of tremendous social change. The American (1775–1783) and French (1789–1799) revolutions, the consolidation of a powerful middle class, and the dawn of the Industrial Revolution all marked these social changes. Among the founders of the positivist school of thought and, according to some, the first modern sociologist was Claude Henri de Rouvroy, the Comte (Count) de Saint-Simon (1760–1825). Saint-Simon, who fought with the French army during the American Revolution and supported the French Revolution, hated the anarchy that followed the French Revolution.1

Saint-Simon wanted to preserve the status quo, which, at the time for him, was the emerging middle-class society then in process of consolidating itself. He came to oppose radical reform, as manifested by the French Revolution, because he believed that society evolved and that each stage in the evolutionary develop- ment of society was necessary and perfect.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Perhaps more familiar than Saint-Simon is Isidore Marie Auguste Francois Xavier Comte (1798–1857), who is better known as Auguste Comte. Comte was Saint-Simon’s secretary and protégé from 1817 until 1824, when they had a falling out. Apparently, Comte believed Saint-Simon was too much in a rush to apply his Christian-inspired socialistic ideas to contemporary politics without laying the proper intellectual foundations, while Saint-Simon faulted Comte for his opposi- tion to Saint-Simon’s socialistic ideas and his narrow focus on the scientific part of Saint-Simon’s system. In any event, it was Comte who coined the term positivism in the 1820s.2 Comte has also been credited with founding sociology—a concept he coined in 1839.3 During the period from 1817 to 1823, Comte and Saint-Simon worked on a manuscript entitled Plan of the Scientific Operations Necessary for the Reorganization of Society in which they suggested that politics should be referred to as social physics and should be studied in the manner of the physical or natural sciences. They also argued that human knowledge evolved through stages—the theocratic and the metaphysical—before reaching its final stage—the positive (or scientific). The positive stage is the final “perfect” stage in which truth is revealed through the scientific method. Comte acknowledged that the Enlightenment think- ers had contributed to the progression from the theocratic stage to the metaphysi- cal stage by helping to break up the old feudal, theological order. However, he argued that Enlightenment philosophy obstructed further progress to the positive stage and, therefore, had outlived its usefulness.

Comte rejected the Enlightenment’s notion of free will because he believed that people are subject to the natural laws, which positivists maintain are invari- ant, universally valid, discoverable only through reason, and superior to the laws of human beings or the state.4 Furthermore, Comte did not embrace the French Revolution’s credo of “liberty, equality, and brotherhood.” He believed that the ideas of equality and of the sovereignty of the people were erroneous articles of faith and that they condemned superior people (like himself ) to the will of the masses. Comte was no democrat (or socialist)! He believed that social order was not compatible with perpetual discussions about the foundations of society. The scientific elite, according to Comte, would determine what the natural laws are and would indicate to the lower classes how their lot in life may be slowly improved in accordance with those laws. He viewed social evils, such as crime, as products of ideas and manners—the glue that holds society together or the combustible material that breaks society apart—and not of basic economic and political institutions. As a result, he maintained that existing institutions must not be altered or changed. He believed that people, especially the lower classes, should be submissive to authority and the natural laws and resign themselves to their lot in life—anything else would prove fatal to progression to the positive stage of society. In his Système de politique positive (1851–1854), Comte unabash- edly proclaimed himself Pope of the new positive religion.

In sum, positive philosophy was based on the idea that science had no other aim than the establishment of intellectual order, which, it was assumed, is the basis of every other order. The purpose of positive philosophy was to avert rev- olution and achieve the resignation of the masses to the conditions of the exist- ing order. Politically, positive philosophy is extremely conservative.

26 C H A P T E R 3

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

T H E I N F L U E N C E O F E M P I R I C A L

O R E X P E R I M E N T A L S C I E N C E

Publication of the first modern national crime statistics in France in 1827, to- gether with official records of economic conditions, which became available in a few European countries in the 1600s, made it possible for positivists such as André-Michel Guerry (1802–1866), who, in 1829, was appointed to collect the moral statistics of Paris, and Belgian statistician Adolphe Quetelet (1796–1874) to empirically study the relationship between various economic conditions and crime.5 In the late 1820s and early 1830s, both Guerry and Quetelet indepen- dently analyzed the annually published crime rates and discovered that the rates remained remarkably constant from year to year and that the contribution of various types of crimes to the overall crime rate varied little. From those findings, they concluded that crime must be a regular feature of social life; crime must be rooted in social arrangements; and, if those arrangements could be identified, crime could be eliminated. They also concluded that it was implausible that acts of free will could assume such a uniform character. According to Quetelet, “The possibility of establishing moral statistics, and deducing instructive and use- ful consequences therefrom, depends entirely on this fundamental fact, that man’s free choice disappears, and remains without sensible effect, when the observations are extended over a great number of individuals.”6

Guerry and Quetelet also used available statistics to examine the intuitively appealing proposition that poverty caused crime. Again, working independently, they found that the relationship was more complex than they originally believed. For example, they found higher rates of property crimes, but lower rates of violent crimes, in the wealthiest regions of France. Guerry concluded that poverty itself was not the cause of property crime. Instead, he pointed to opportunity as the culprit, arguing that in wealthier areas there was more to steal. Quetelet, who an- alyzed data from Belgium and Holland in addition to France, agreed with Guerry that opportunity was a cause of property crime. However, Quetelet also suggested that “relative poverty,” where there is great inequality between poverty and wealth in the same area, also played a key role in both property and violent crimes. According to Quetelet, relative poverty incites people through jealousy to commit crimes. This is especially true where changing economic conditions cause the im- poverishment of some people while others retain their wealth. Quetelet found less crime in poor areas than in wealthier areas as long as the people in the poor areas were still able to satisfy their basic needs. In short, Guerry and Quetelet were among the first social scientists (they were called moral statisticians) to use empirical analysis to show that crime was related to social arrangements. Guerry may also have produced the first crime map, when he along with his colleague, M. Balbi, published a statistical map showing the extent of education and crime in France.7

Also key to the development of positivism were new discoveries in biology. Especially important were findings that led to the identification of human beings with the rest of the animal world.8 In the Descent of Man (1871), Charles Darwin (1809–1882) suggested that some people were “less highly evolved or developed

P O S I T I V I S T T H E O R I E S 27

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

than others”; some people “were nearer their ape-like ancestors than others in traits, abilities, and dispositions.”9

At about the same time, experimentation with animals was becoming an in- creasingly accepted way of learning about human beings in physiology, medi- cine, psychology, and psychiatry.10 Human beings were beginning to appear to science as one of many creatures, with no special connection to God.11 Human beings were beginning to be understood, not as freewilled, self-determining creatures who could do anything that they wanted to do, but rather as beings whose action was determined by biological and cultural factors.12

M A J O R D I F F E R E N C E S B E T W E E N P O S I T I V I S M

A N D C L A S S I C I S M / N E O C L A S S I C I S M

First, positivists assume that human behavior is determined and not a matter of free will.13 Consequently, positivists focus on cause-and-effect relationships. Cau- sation is established when three to five conditions are met: (1) the presumed cause precedes the presumed effect in time, (2) the presumed cause and the presumed effect are empirically correlated with one another, and (3) the observed empirical correlation between the presumed cause and the presumed effect is not spurious— that is, the empirical relationship cannot be explained away as being due to the influence of some other factor or factors.14 Two other conditions are also men- tioned occasionally: (4) a credible story (theory) connecting the presumed cause with the presumed effect, and (5) the first four conditions are replicated in different contexts with different methodologies.15 Even when all five conditions have been met, however, one cannot assert with certainty that a causal relationship exists; one may only conclude that a causal relationship probably exists.16

It is important to note that the ontological debate in philosophy over whether human beings are “freewilled” or “determined” is an ancient one. However, nei- ther position seems to capture the way most people experience or interpret their behavior. To partially resolve the dilemma, many social scientists distinguish between a “hard” and a “soft” determinism. Hard determinism refers to an all- encompassing compulsion; human beings have no choices whatsoever when con- fronting situations. Soft determinism, a concept that has been attributed to the American philosopher William James (1842–1910) and has also been referred to as conditional free will,17 allows for constrained choice. That is, in any circumstance human beings always have choices, however limited they may be. The most limited choice is to act or not to act. Generally, the more choices people have, the greater the “freedom” they experience. (This notion is what many social scientists mean by “freedom.”) The number of choices people have is also an important indicator of social status: the more choices, the higher the status. Thus, rather than making a distinction between free will and determinism, the distinction made by most social scientists is between hard and soft determinism.

A second difference is that positivists assume that criminals are fundamentally different from noncriminals, either biologically, psychologically, sociologically, or

28 C H A P T E R 3

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

in some combination of all three.18 Positivists search for such differences through scientific inquiry.19 When differences are found, classifications or categories, such as criminal and noncriminal, are created. Classical criminologists, on the other hand, assumed that there are no fundamental differences between people who commit crimes and those who do not. People who choose to commit crimes sim- ply have the opportunity and calculate that the crimes will bring them more plea- sure than not committing them or than the pain of getting caught and punished.

Third, positivists assume that social scientists, including criminologists, can be objective or value-neutral in their work.20 Comte, for example, chided classical theorists about their attempts to comprehend and reason about reality without supporting their contentions with facts. (More will be said about this problem in the next section.)

Fourth, positivists frequently assume that crime is caused by multiple factors, such as hormone imbalances, below-normal intelligence, inadequate socialization or self-control, and economic inequality.21 Classical criminologists, as noted pre- viously, assumed that crime is caused by individuals who freely choose to com- mit it after rationally calculating that the crime will provide them more pleasure than pain. (Neoclassical theorists conceded that some individuals might commit crimes because their free will and rational calculating ability are impaired.)

Fifth, positivists believe that society is based primarily on a consensus about moral values but not on a social contract, as classical theorists believed. Rather, for most positivists, social consensus is a product of either the French sociologist Emile Durkheim’s (1858–1917) collective conscience (that is, the general sense of morality of the times) in more primitive or homogeneous societies or his interdependency of occupational roles (that is, the division of labor) in more advanced societies. (Both of those concepts are described in greater detail in Chapter 6.)22

G E N E R A L P R O B L E M S W I T H P O S I T I V I S T T H E O R I E S

Although there are problems peculiar to each positivist theory of crime causa- tion, some of which will be described as the biological, psychological, and socio- logical theories are examined, problems generic to the theories as a group also arise. In this section, five of these general problems are presented. It is important to remember, as discussed in Chapter 1, that these problems do not necessarily condemn a theory. They only diminish the theory’s explanatory power.

First is the problem of overprediction.23 Positivist theories generally account for too much crime. At the same time, they do not explain exceptions well. For exam- ple, in a theory that suggests that crime is caused by poverty, the theory overpredicts because not all poor people commit crime. Also, the theory cannot explain ade- quately why many poor people do not commit crimes. Regarding the difficulty in explaining exceptions, positivist theories, especially many sociological theories, gen- erally ignore individual differences. Large groups of people are presumed to respond similarly to the same biological, psychological, and especially sociological factors.

Second, positivist theories generally ignore the criminalization process. They take the legal definition of crime for granted. Ignored is the question why certain

P O S I T I V I S T T H E O R I E S 29

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

behaviors are defined as criminal whereas other, similar behaviors are not. The problem occurs because positivists generally separate the study of crime from a theory of the law and the state.24

Third is the problem with the consensual worldview, the belief in a norma- tive consensus.25 Most positivist theories assume that most people agree most of the time about moral values; that is, general agreement prevails about what is right and wrong and good and bad. The problem with such a view is that it ignores the issue of power, as well as the multitude of fundamental conflicts of value and interest in society. It also denies the existence of multiple and socially constructed realities and leads to a blind acceptance of the status quo.

A fourth problem is the belief in determinism, the idea that choice of action is not free but is determined by causes independent of will.26 Positivists generally assume that human beings only adapt or react. A problem is that they also create. How else do you explain new social arrangements or new ways of thinking?27

Even if criminal behavior were determined, identifying the “cause” or “causes” of crime is a problem because establishing a lack of spuriousness (the absence of influential but unconsidered factors) may be impossible.28 The belief in deter- minism allows the positivist to present an absolute situation uncomplicated by the ability to choose.29 The belief makes rational planning and control logically possible, that is, with the help of the positivist.30

A fifth general problem with positivist theories is the belief in the ability of social scientists, including criminologists, to be objective or value-neutral in their work.31 Assuming that an “objective reality” exists independent of their perception of it, positivists often fail to understand that what they know is a product of how they interpret what they observe. What is observed ultimately depends on an individual’s cognitive apparatus, his or her past experiences, as well as the social context in which the observation is made. The problem is that social scientists, as well as all other human beings, are always biased. Human beings are biased by virtue of their being human. To deny this point is self- deception. Why do you suppose social scientists select a particular problem to study? For that matter, why do you suppose that social scientists choose their particular occupation? Perhaps it is because they have an interest in the sub- ject matter. Many positivists fail to recognize that to describe and to evaluate such human action as criminal behavior is fundamentally a moral endeavor and, therefore, subject to bias. Those positivists who do recognize the problem of bias attempt to overcome it. Whether they ever can be successful is another matter.

S T U D Y Q U E S T I O N S

1. What influence did Saint-Simon and Comte have on the development of positivist theory?

2. What influence did Guerry and Quetelet have on the development of positivist theory?

30 C H A P T E R 3

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

3. What influence did Darwin have on the development of positivist theory?

4. What are major differences between positivism and classicism/neoclassicism?

5. What are general problems with positivist theories?

N O T E S

1. Unless indicated otherwise, material in this section is from Comte (1974); Runes (1968); Saint-Simon (1964); and especially Zeitlin (1968).

2. Wilson (1973:532).

3. Vold and Bernard (1986:144).

4. See Runes (1968:206).

5. Unless indicated otherwise, the following description is from Vold and Bernard (1986:131–132); Taylor et al. (1974:37–38).

6. Quetelet on the Laws of the Social System (2000:271).

7. Guerry on the Statistics of Crime in France (2000:255).

8. Vold (1979:35).

9. Vold (1979:36).

10. Vold and Bernard (1986:36).

11. Vold and Bernard (1986:36).

12. Vold and Bernard (1986:36).

13. See Taylor et al. (1974:21–23, 31–32); Davis (1975).

14. See Babbie (1992:72).

15. Paternoster and Brame (2008:981).

16. Bernard et al. (2010:6).

17. See Fishbein (1990:30–31).

18. See Vold and Bernard (1986:45); Matza (1964:11–12).

19. See Taylor et al. (1974:11).

20. See Taylor et al. (1974:11, 19–21, 26); Davis (1975).

21. See Vold (1979:37, 47).

22. See Taylor et al. (1974:11–19, 31); Davis (1975); Durkheim (1933).

23. See Taylor et al. (1974:24–26); Matza (1964:21–22).

24. See Taylor et al. (1974:28); Matza (1964:5).

25. See Taylor et al. (1974:26–28, 31); Davis (1975).

26. See Taylor et al. (1974:29–32); Davis (1975).

27. See Taylor et al. (1974:54).

28. Robinson (1999).

29. Taylor et al. (1974:31–32).

30. Taylor et al. (1974:35).

31. See Taylor et al. (1974:11, 19–21, 26, 32); Gouldner (1971); Davis (1975). Rafter (1997:239–240) claims that psychiatrists used the concept of psychopathy to wrest

P O S I T I V I S T T H E O R I E S 31

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

control of criminology from psychologists who then dominated the field and with whom psychiatrists were in competition. Laub and Sampson (1991:1404) attribute the heated debates about criminological theory between Edwin Sutherland and Shelden and Eleanor Glueck to “their respective methodological and disciplinary biases.” Daly and Chesney-Lind (1988:500) maintain that “a major feminist project today is to expose the distortions and assumptions of androcentric science [which reveals] that an ideology of objectivity can serve to mask men’s gender loyalties as well as loyalties to other class or racial groups.” Cullen, Gendreau, Jarjoura, and Wright (1997:387) argue that Herrnstein and Murray’s showing that IQ is a pow- erful predictor of crime in their controversial book The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, and their resultant crime control policies, are based on the authors’ ideology, “not on intelligent science.” For a recent study showing that criminological theorizing is driven by sociopolitical ideology, see Walsh and Ellis (1999).

32 C H A P T E R 3

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

ROBERT M. BOHM University of Central Florida

and

BRENDA L. VOGEL California State University, Long Beach

A Primer on Crime and Delinquency Theory

T H I R D E D I T I O N

Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10

A Primer on Crime and Delinquency Theory, Third Edition Robert M. Bohm, Brenda L. Vogel

Editor: Carolyn Henderson-Meier

Editorial Assistant: John Chell

Media Editor: Andy Yap

Marketing Manager: Michelle Williams

Marketing Communications Manager: Laura Localio

Content Project Manager: Pre-PressPMG

Art Director: Maria Epes

Print Buyer: Linda Hsu

Permissions Editor: Roberta Broyer

Production Service: Pre-PressPMG

Text Designer: Pre-PressPMG

Cover Designer: Riezebos Holzbaur/Brie Hattey

Cover Image: Corbis Yellow

Compositor: Pre-PressPMG

For product information and technology assistance, contact us at Cengage Learning

Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706

For permission to use material from this text or product, submit all requests online at cengage.com/permissions

Further permissions questions can be emailed to [email protected]

Library of Congress Control Number: 2010926703

ISBN-13: 978-0-495-80750-6

ISBN-10: 0-495-80750-8

Wadsworth 20 Davis Drive Belmont, CA 94002-3098 USA

Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd.

To learn more about Wadsworth, visit www.cengage.com/Wadsworth

Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred online store www.cengagebrain.com

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Biological Theories

Physiognomy and Phrenology

Criminal Anthropology

Body Type Theories

Heredity Studies

Modern Biocriminology

General Problems with Biological Theories

T he claim recently has been made that “the scientific study of crime actuallybegan with biological theories, in the late 18th century,” and that, “until the early 20th century, biological theories and criminology were virtually synonymous.”1

Biological theories of crime causation (biological positivism) are based on the belief that criminals are physiologically different from noncriminals. Early biological theo- ries assumed that structure determines function.2 In other words, criminals behave differently because structurally they are different.3 Today’s biocriminologists are more likely to assume that biochemistry determines function or, more precisely, the difference between criminals and noncriminals is the result of a complex interac- tion between biochemical and environmental factors (more about this later). To test biological theories, researchers try to demonstrate, through measurement and statis- tical analysis, that there are or are not significant structural or biochemical differences between criminals and noncriminals.4

Historically, the cause of crime, from this perspective, was biological inferior- ity. Biological inferiority in criminals was assumed to produce certain physical or genetic characteristics that distinguished criminals from noncriminals.5 It is impor- tant to emphasize that the physical or genetic characteristics themselves did not cause crime, they were only the symptoms, or stigmata, of the more fundamental inferiority.6 The concept of biological inferiority has lost favor among today’s bio- criminologists who generally prefer to emphasize the biological differences between

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

criminals and noncriminals without adding the value judgment. In any event, several different methodologies have been employed to detect physical differences between criminals and noncriminals. They are physiognomy, phrenology, criminal anthropology, study of body types, heredity studies (including family trees, statistical comparisons, twin studies, and adoption studies) and, in the last twenty years or so, studies based on new scientific technologies that allow, for example, the examina- tion of brain function and structure.

P H Y S I O G N O M Y A N D P H R E N O L O G Y

Physiognomy is the judging of character or disposition from facial and other physical features. The Greek philosopher Aristotle is credited with writing the first systematic physiognomic treatise.7 In his discussion of noses, for example, Aristotle wrote:

[T]hose with thick bulbous ends belong to persons who are insensitive, swinish, and prone to acts of theft, fraud, and intemperance; sharp- tipped noses belong to the irascible, those easily provoked and liable to assaultive behavior and ruffianism; rounded, large obtuse noses are characteristic of the magnanimous; slender, eagle-like hooked noses belong to the noble; round-tipped noses to the hedonistic; noses with a very slight notch at the root belong to the impudent; open nostrils are a sign of passionate appetites, and in both men and women are frequently found in the sexually promiscuous.8

During the Middle Ages, a law specifying that when “two people were sus- pected of having committed the same crime, the uglier one should be regarded as more likely the guilty party” showed the influence of physiognomy during that period.9 The “science” of physiognomy probably reached its peak in 1775, when the Swiss scholar and theologian Johann Kaspar Lavater (1741–1781) pub- lished a four-volume work on the subject called Physiognomical Fragments.10 The book, according to Vold and Bernard, was well received in Europe at the time and was nearly as popular as Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishments.11

However, by the end of the eighteenth century, physiognomy had fallen into disrepute. As evidence, a British law declared, “all persons fayning to have knowl- edge of Phisiognomie or like Fantasticall Ymaginacions” are liable to “be stripped naked from the middle upwards and openly whipped until his body be bloudye.”12

Another British law held that “all persons pretending to have skill in physiognomy were deemed rogues and vagabonds and were liable to be publicly whipped or sent to the gaol until the following quarter sessions.”13 Today the “science” of physiog- nomy primarily is of historical interest, as the precursor of the better-developed phrenology.14

Phrenology (“cranioscopy,” “craniology,” or “zoonomy”) is the estimation of character and intelligence based on an examination of the shape of the skull (or cranium).15 Phrenology is associated with the work of Franz Joseph Gall

34 C H A P T E R 4

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

(1758–1828) and his student and collaborator Johann Gaspar Spurzheim (1776– 1832),16 who are considered by some commentators as the fathers of criminology.17

The key propositions of phrenology are derived from Aristotle’s belief that the brain is the organ of the mind:18

1. The exterior of the skull conforms to the interior and to the shape of the brain.

2. The “mind” consists of faculties or functions (for example, acquisitiveness, friendliness, hope, conscientiousness, and philoprogenitiveness—love of one’s children).

3. These faculties are related to the shape of the brain and skull; hence, just as the brain is the “organ of the mind,” these “bumps” are indicators of the “organs” of the special faculties.

4. The size of the special faculty organs determines the strength in which each faculty is manifested in each individual.

5. Each organ is considered as engaged, either independently in bringing forth its own product, or collectively with others in elaborating compound mental states.

Gall listed nearly twenty-six mental faculties; Spurzheim augmented Gall’s list to increase the total to thirty-five.19 Spurzheim divided the faculties into two ma- jor groups: feelings and intellectual faculties. He subdivided feelings into propensi- ties (internal impulses inviting only to certain actions, such as combativeness, destructiveness, and secretiveness), and sentiments (impulses which prompt to emotion as well as to action, such as self-esteem, cautiousness, and benevolence). Intellectual faculties were subdivided into perceptive faculties (such as individuality, language, and order) and reflective faculties (such as comparison and causality).20

The propensities, sentiments, and intellectual faculties are presumed to be in equi- librium in the noncriminal, but in the criminal the propensities are dominant.21 It is interesting to note that the propensities, sentiments, and intellectual faculties are analogous to Freud’s later formulation of the id, ego, and superego. Whether Freud was familiar with the earlier formulation is not known. Some phrenologists rejected the deterministic implications of the theory and believed that favorable social circumstances could allow an individual with an inferior skull shape to live a reputable life.22 In any event, phrenology was very popular during the first half of the nineteenth century but eventually lost its appeal because of its determinism, which was assailed as being antireligious and anti–free will.23 Also, the work of Charles Darwin—especially his Origin of Species (1859)—challenged phrenology’s notion of a compartmentalized brain.24 The popularity of Darwin’s ideas helped shift the explanation of criminal behavior to evolutionary theories.

C R I M I N A L A N T H R O P O L O G Y

Criminal anthropology is the study of “criminal” human beings. It is associated with the work of an Italian army doctor, and later university professor, Cesare Lombroso (1835–1909). Lombroso, who is also known as the father of criminology,25 first

B I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 35

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

published his theory of a physical criminal type in 1876. Although he had autopsied nearly four hundred prisoners and had taken precise measurements of various bodily organs of approximately six thousand additional prisoners and three thousand soldiers, according to Lombroso, his theory emerged as a revelation following his autopsy of a reputed bandit by the name of Vilella.26 As Lombroso explained:

This was not merely an idea, but a revelation. At the sight of that skull, I seemed to see all of a sudden, lighted up as a vast plain under a flaming sky, the problem of the nature of the criminal—an atavistic being who reproduces in his person the ferocious instincts of primitive humanity and the inferior animals. Thus were explained anatomically the enor- mous jaws, high cheekbones, prominent superciliar arches, solitary lines in the palms, extreme size of the orbits, handle-shaped or sessile ears found in criminals, savages, and apes, insensitivity to pain, extremely acute sight, tattooing, excessive idleness, love of orgies, and the irresist- ible craving for evil for its own sake, the desire not only to extinguish life in the victim, but to mutilate the corpse, tear its flesh, and drink its blood.27

Lombroso’s theory consisted of the following propositions:28 First, criminals are, by birth, a distinct type; they are physically different from noncriminals. Second, those differences can be recognized by stigmata (signs) or anomalies like those listed in the previous quote. Third, criminals are distinguished from noncriminals if they have more than five stigmata. A person with three to five stigmata may exhibit criminal behavior, and criminality is unlikely in a person with less than three stigmata. Fourth, physical stigmata do not cause crime; they are only indicative of an individual who is predisposed to crime. Such a person is either an atavist—someone who exhibits the characteristics of a primi- tive human being or an evolutionary “throwback” to our ape-like ancestors—or a result of degeneration. According to Guglielmo Ferrero (1871–1942), one of Lombroso’s young collaborators and son-in-law, resistance to regular and me- thodical work and impulsiveness are the principal characteristics of atavists.29

Fifth, because of their personal natures, such persons cannot desist from crime unless they experience very favorable lives.

In subsequent editions of his book, Lombroso described other causes of crime besides atavism. Crimes were also caused by insanity, epilepsy, passion (a cause of political crimes), poor parenting or education (“habitual criminals”), predispositions activated by particular environmental conditions or opportunities (“criminaloids” or “occasional criminals”), and for reasons such as self-defense or the defense of family honor (“pseudocriminals”).30 In later editions of The Crimi- nal Man, as well as in Crime, Its Causes and Remedies (originally published in 1911), Lombroso paid considerable attention to social causes of crime.

Lombroso is mostly remembered for his concept of the atavistic criminal, who, he estimated, comprised about 40 percent of all criminals.31 Elsewhere, however, Lombroso estimated that the occasional criminal comprised about 75 percent of all criminals32—a curious mathematical discrepancy for someone who was known for his precise measurements. Critics argue that even if a criminal

36 C H A P T E R 4

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

type exists—something about which many critics are dubious—they represent only a small percentage of all offenders and have received attention far out of proportion to their legitimate importance.33

Late in life, Lombroso wrote an article in which he described the practical applications of his theory.34 Lombroso maintained that the sole purpose of a nation’s criminal code should be the defense of society, and, not surprisingly, the code should be based on knowledge of the criminal. To protect society, the courts should not consider extenuating circumstances, even insanity. Punish- ment should be guided by the offender’s tendency. If the offender is a born criminal, he or she should be confined for life, even though the crime is rela- tively minor. Lombroso believed Italy’s abolition of the death penalty in 1889 was a mistake. Harsh punishments should also be imposed on recidivists and offenders who enlist others in their crimes. Conversely, if the offender is an honest person impelled by some strong motive to commit a crime, he or she should be treated more leniently. Lombroso provided the example of individuals who espoused the ideas of class equality and the participation of laborers in profits. At one time, it was a crime to maintain those ideas, now (in the mid-1890s in Italy), observed Lombroso, those ideas are the basis of possible reforms.

Lombroso favored the compensation of crime victims, making the offender work to pay the victim if the offender lacked the money to pay the victim himself or herself. He also believed that the offender and not society should pay for the offender’s imprisonment. He argued that reform should be directed at the occa- sional criminal because that category of offender was the only one for which much could be done. According to Lombroso, the occasional criminal only com- mitted crimes when forced by circumstances. To reform occasional criminals, Lombroso advocated removing criminal opportunities by providing employment and keeping them away from the mischievous influence of alcohol by providing them with mental amusement. Most importantly, the tendency to crime, which ap- pears in infancy, should not be allowed to continue in youth and become habitual.

Lombroso was disappointed that Italy’s new criminal code was not based on his criminal anthropology. He noted that the only countries to adopt any of his ideas were the United States, England, Norway, and Switzerland. Each of those countries had attempted to restrict the consumption of alcohol. He was especially complimentary of the United States, which, according to Lombroso, had applied the scientific knowledge of criminal anthropology to criminal reform efforts. He cited the first bureau for degenerates and abnormal people established in Washington (presumably DC), but he had special praise for Zebulon Brockway (1827–1920), warden of the Elmira Reformatory in New York from 1876 to 1900, who supposedly based his reform strategies on Lombroso’s ideas. Offenders received indeterminate sentences to the Elmira Reformatory and were not re- leased until they were reformed, acquired a means of self-support, and had a place to work so they could earn a living. In 1893, it was claimed that 80 percent of Elmira inmates had been successfully reformed.35

Two main problems with Lombroso’s criminal anthropology are apparent. First is the assumption that certain physical characteristics indicate biological infe- riority. Unless independent evidence supports that assumption, other than the

B I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 37

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

association of the physical characteristics with criminality, then the result is circular reasoning.36 In other words, crime is caused by biological inferiority, which is itself indicated by the physical characteristics associated with criminality.

A second problem is the assumption that apes and other lower animals are savage and criminal. As Harvard paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and histo- rian of science Stephen Gould (1941–2002) remarked, “If some men look like apes, but apes be kind, then the argument fails.”37 In an effort to make the dubious connection, Lombroso had to engage in a tortured anthropomorphism. As Gould related:

He [Lombroso] cites, for example, an ant driven by rage to kill and dismember an aphid; an adulterous stork who, with her lover, murdered her husband; a criminal association of beavers who ganged up to murder a solitary compatriot; a male ant, without access to female reproductives, who violated a (female) worker with atrophied sexual organs, causing her great pain and death; he even refers to the insect eating of certain plants as an “equivalent of crime.”38

Despite those problems, Lombroso’s theory was popular in the United States through the first decade of the twentieth century, until the publication in 1913 of Charles B. Goring’s The English Convict. Goring (1870–1919) compared more than 2,300 prison inmates to a control group of “noncriminal” Englishmen.39

He examined thirty-seven physical traits suggested by Lombroso to be associated with crime and found very little support for Lombroso’s contention. What Goring did find, however, was that inmates were smaller in stature and less in- telligent (by his own reckoning) than noncriminals. He extrapolated from these findings that criminals “are inherently inferior to law-abiding citizens.”40 This inferiority, he argued, was physical, intellectual, and moral.

Two of Lombroso’s students—Enrico Ferri (1856–1928) and Raffaele Garofalo (1852–1934)—together with Lombroso have been called the Italian school of criminology. Though they differed somewhat in their analyses of crime, they were all positivists and opposed the freewill ontology of their fellow Italian Beccaria and the other classical thinkers. The subject of Ferri’s dissertation was the problem of free will.41

Although Ferri emphasized biological causes of crime—he coined the term born criminal—he also believed that crime was the product of multiple factors, including physical factors (such as race, climate, and geography), anthropological factors (such as age, gender, and psychological attributes), and social factors (such as population density, religion, customs, organization of government, and eco- nomic conditions).42 Consistent with his socialist beliefs, Ferri advocated the fol- lowing crime prevention policies: free trade, abolition of monopolies, subsidized housing, public savings banks, better street lighting, birth control, freedom of marriage and divorce, state control of weapons manufacturing, foundling homes, and public recreation facilities.43 Later in life he became a fascist and, in the 1920s, was invited by Mussolini to draft a new penal code for Italy.44 His penal code, which reflected his positivist and socialist/fascist beliefs, was rejected for departing too much from classical legal thought.45

38 C H A P T E R 4

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Garofalo, on the other hand, rejected Ferri’s belief in environmental causes of crime as well as Lombroso’s theory of atavism. Instead, Garofalo, adopting principles of Social Darwinism, believed that crime was a natural product of adaptation; criminals were physically unable to adapt to society. Therefore, argued Garofalo, most criminals were unfit to survive and should be eliminated from society through extermination in the case of criminals who committed se- rious offenses or long-term imprisonment, life imprisonment, or overseas trans- portation for criminals who committed less serious offenses. For criminals who committed crimes under exceptional circumstances and who were not likely to repeat them, Garofalo advocated “enforced reparation.”46 It should not be sur- prising that Garofalo’s ideas, like those of Ferri, were popular during Mussolini’s fascist regime in Italy. This underscores a potential problem with positivist theo- ries: They can easily be used to justify, on a scientific basis, ideas that promote racial purity, national power, and authoritarian leadership.47

B O D Y T Y P E T H E O R I E S

Body type theories are an extension of Lombroso’s criminal anthropology. William H. Sheldon (1898–1977), whose work in the 1940s was based on earlier work by Ernst Kretschmer (1888–1964) in the 1920s, is perhaps the best known of the body type theorists. According to Sheldon, human beings can be divided into three basic body types, or somatotypes, which correspond to three basic temperaments: the endomorph, the mesomorph, and the ectomorph.48 The endomorph is soft, fat, a comfortable person who loves luxury, and generally an extrovert.49 Mesomorphs are athletically built, muscular, with a more active, asser- tive, and aggressive temperament.50 Ectomorphs are tall, lean, delicate, fragile, and generally introverted and shy.51

Sheldon argued that everyone has elements of all three types but that one type usually predominates. In a study of two hundred Boston delinquents between 1939 and 1949, Sheldon found that delinquents were more mesomorphic than nondelinquents and that serious delinquents were more mesomorphic than less se- rious delinquents.52 Subsequent studies by Sheldon Glueck (1896–1980) and his wife Eleanor Glueck (1898–1972)—Harvard Law School’s famed criminologist team—in the 1950s and by Juan B. Cortes with Florence M. Gatti in the 1970s also found the association between mesomorphy and delinquency.53 The studies by Cortes and Gatti, moreover, used more precise measurement techniques than those by either Sheldon or the Gluecks, who were criticized on this account.

The major criticism of the body type theories is that differences in behavior reflect the social selection process and not biological inferiority.54 In other words, delinquents are more likely to be mesomorphic than nondelinquents because, for example, mesomorphs are more likely to be selected for gang membership. Additionally, the finding that delinquents are more likely than nondelinquents to be mesomorphic contradicts the general assumption that criminals (or delin- quents) are biologically inferior, at least with regard to physique.

B I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 39

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

In any event, if one assumes that crime is the product of biological inferior- ity, then the crime prevention implications are rather straightforward: isolate criminals, sterilize them, exterminate them, or employ some combination of the three. Sheldon’s ambitions, however, were loftier than simply reducing crime. He wanted “to save aristocratic ectomorphic stock from being ‘killed off ’ by urban conditions, competition from inferior stocks, and the leveling ef- fects of democracy.”55 Physiognomists, phrenologists, criminal anthropologists, and body type theorists were the first criminal profilers.

H E R E D I T Y S T U D I E S

A variety of methods have been employed to test the proposition that criminals are genetically different from noncriminals or that criminality is inherited. Perhaps the earliest methodology was the use of family trees. This was the tech- nique used by Richard L. Dugdale (1841–1883) and by Arthur H. Estabrook (1885–1973) in their studies of the Juke family (a pseudonym).56 Dugdale’s study was first published in 1875, and included 709 Juke family members: 540 of Juke blood and 169 related by marriage. Estabrook’s study expanded Dugdale’s study, was published in 1916, and included 2,820 Juke family members (including all of Dugdale’s 709): 2,094 of Juke blood and 726 related by marriage. The Juke fam- ily presumably had 171 criminals—mostly thieves and prostitutes (140 identified by Dugdale and an additional 31 identified by Estabrook)—118 of Juke blood and 53 related by marriage. Also of concern to both Dugdale and Estabrook was that of the 709 Juke family members reported by Dugdale and the 2,820 Juke family members reported by Estabrook, 180 and 366 family members, respectively, were paupers who had either been in the poorhouse or received outdoor relief at a cost to the state of New York of about $1.3 million (between 1800 and 1875) for the 180 of Dugdale’s Jukes and $2 million (between 1800 and 1915) for Estabrook’s 366 Jukes.57

Even though only about six percent of the Jukes had criminal records (69 percent with Juke blood and 31 percent related by marriage) and approxi- mately thirteen percent of them were paupers (82 percent with Juke blood and 18 percent related by marriage), proponents of the eugenics movement used the studies by Dugdale and Estabrook, and others studies like them, “to demonstrate scientifically that a large number of rural poor whites were ‘genetic defectives.’ ” 58

(During the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century, the eugenics movement promoted the selective breeding of human beings to produce “desirable” genetic characteristics and the preven- tion of individuals with undesirable genetic characteristics from reproducing). However, a finding that criminality appears in successive generations does not prove that criminality is inherited or is the product of a hereditary defect. For example, the use of a fork in eating has been a trait of many families for many generations, but that does not prove that the use of a fork is inherited. Ironi- cally, Dugdale believed that the environment was primarily to blame for the Jukes’ troubles. He wrote that the “environment tends to produce habits which

40 C H A P T E R 4

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

may become hereditary.” To improve public morality, Dugdale advocated public health and infant education. Dugdale understood that the family tree method could not adequately separate hereditary influences from environmen- tal influences.59

A second methodology used to test the proposition that crime is inherited or is the product of a hereditary defect is statistical comparison. Charles Goring— the same Charles Goring whose research undermined Lombroso’s criminal anthropology—was perhaps the first social scientist to argue that if criminality exhibited the same degree of family resemblance as other physical traits, such as eye or hair color, then criminality, like those other traits, must be inherited.60 In tests of his theory, Goring indeed found that associations between general crimi- nality, as measured by imprisonment, and parental and fraternal resemblance for ordinary physical traits, as well as for inherited defects such as insanity, were remarkably similar.

Goring was not naive, however, and recognized that the associations that he found might be the result of environmental factors rather than, or in addition to, genetic factors. Thus, in separate analyses he attempted to determine the influ- ence of environmental factors. A problem was that he considered only eight environmental factors. A more telling criticism of Goring’s findings is that he limited his study to male offenders, although he notes that the ratio of brothers to sisters in prison is seventeen to one. If criminality is inherited in the same way that hair or eye color is, then one would expect it to affect females to relatively the same extent as it does males unless, of course, criminality is a sex- linked trait. In short, statistical comparisons cannot adequately separate hereditary influences from environmental influences.

A third, more sophisticated method of testing the proposition that crime is inherited or is the result of a hereditary defect is the use of twin studies.61

Heredity is assumed to be the same in identical twins because they are the prod- uct of a single egg. Heredity is assumed to be different in fraternal twins because they are the product of two eggs fertilized by two sperm. The logic of the method is that if there is greater similarity in behavior between identical twins than between fraternal twins, then the behavior must be due to heredity, since environments are much the same. More than a half century of using this meth- odology reveals that identical twins are more likely to demonstrate concordance (where both twins have criminal records) than are fraternal twins, thus support- ing the hereditary link.

A problem with the twin studies, however, is the potential confounding of genetic and environmental influences. Identical twins tend to be treated more alike by others, spend much more time together, and share a greater sense of mutual identity than do fraternal twins.62 For nine months they also shared a critical environment inside the same mother.63 All those factors are important environmental influences, and, when environmental influences are controlled, studies show that the difference in criminality between identical and fraternal twins is not significant.64

A fourth method, and the most recent and sophisticated way of examining the inheritability of criminality, is the adoption study.65 The first such study was

B I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 41

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

conducted in the 1970s. In this method, the criminal records of adopted children (almost always boys) who were adopted at a relatively early age are compared with the criminal records of both their biological parents and their adoptive par- ents (almost always fathers). The rationale is that if the criminal records of adopted boys are more like those of their biological fathers than like those of their adoptive fathers, the criminality of the adopted boys can be assumed to be the result of heredity.

Findings of the adoption studies reveal that the percentage of adoptees who are criminal is greater when the biological father has a criminal record than when the adoptive father has one. However, there is also an interactive effect. In other words, a greater percentage of adoptees have criminal records when both fathers have criminal records than when only one of them does. Thus, like the twin stud- ies, the adoption studies presumably demonstrate the influence of heredity but cannot adequately separate it from the influence of the environment. A problem with the adoption studies is the difficulty of interpreting the relative influences of heredity and environment, especially when the adoption does not take place shortly after birth or when, as is commonly the case, the adoption agency attempts to find an adoptive home that matches the biological home in family income and socioeconomic status.66 In sum, an analysis of more than sixty years of research using studies of families, twins, and adoptees found that claims of a genetic link to criminality are based on very weak statistical evidence; indeed, the more methodologically sound the study, the weaker the relationship found.67

M O D E R N B I O C R I M I N O L O G Y

Modern biocriminologists explore how biological factors, in conjunction with environmental factors, lead to the development of certain traits that are linked to antisocial behavior.68 Such behavior may or may not be defined by society as a crime. The contribution of biological factors to human behavior is a subject of interest across many disciplines including psychology, psychiatry, developmen- tal biology, cognitive neuroscience, and behavioral ecology.69 Modern criminol- ogists, however, have been somewhat reluctant to embrace this body of knowledge, possibly because of its implicit connection to the early, and now dis- credited, work of Lombroso, its ties to the eugenics movement, and its use by the Nazis to justify the extermination of millions of people, mostly Jews, during the Holocaust.70

Nonetheless, within the past twenty years, significant progress has been made uncovering biological risk factors that predispose individuals to antisocial behavior.71 Researchers have defined antisocial behavior in various ways, but de- finitions generally include a wide range of behaviors whose “main characteristic is a violation of the basic rights of others.”72 These behaviors include aggression, crime, violence, and delinquency, among others.73

It is essential to emphasize that just because a behavior is found to have a genetic link does not mean that the behavior is inevitable or unalterable. Predisposition does

42 C H A P T E R 4

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

not mean predestination.74 Considerable research demonstrates the moderating effects of social factors on biological risks for antisocial behavior.75 For example, a recent review of thirty-nine studies found that genetic and environmental factors interact to give rise to biological and social risk factors for antisocial and violent behaviors.76 Specifically, genetic predispositions are more deleterious in the presence of adverse environments, such as those involving child maltreatment, poor family atmosphere, lower social class, and adult violence.77

The biological factors that have been linked to antisocial behavior include both heritable (capable of being passed on to the next generation through the genes) and nonheritable characteristics. Characteristics that have been shown to be at least somewhat heritable include brain structure and function, abnormal levels of certain neurotransmitters, and low arousal.78 Those that are not genetic include obstetric factors (those pertaining to before and during childbirth), expo- sure to environmental toxins, and brain injury.79

At least some unprovoked violent criminal behavior is believed to be caused by tumors and other destructive or inflammatory processes of the limbic sys- tem.80 Psychopaths (discussed in Chapter 5 on psychological theories) are also believed to suffer from limbic system disorders.81 The limbic system is a structure surrounding the brain stem and is the source of feelings of pleasure and pain.82 It also controls, in part, the life functions of heartbeat, breathing, and sleep, and is believed to moderate expressions of violence, such emotions as anger, rage, and fear, and sexual response.83 Violent criminal behavior has also been linked to disorders in other parts of the brain.84

Advances in brain imaging technology have dramatically enhanced the abil- ity of researchers to see the structure and functioning of the brain. For example, positron emission tomography (PET) allows researchers to see which parts of the brain are active during cognitive tasks, while magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides a detailed, three-dimensional picture of brain anatomy that can be “sliced” along any plane.85 Numerous brain imaging studies have found that vi- olent felons show reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex (located right beneath the forehead), which is responsible for executive functions, including mediating conflicting thoughts, making choices between right and wrong or good and bad, predicting future events, and governing social control, such as suppressing emo- tional or sexual urges; overactivity in the anterior cingulate gyrus (located in the midfrontal cortex), which is involved in self-regulation and control of thoughts, feelings, and behavior; and abnormalities in the left temporal lobe (located on the left side of the brain just above the ear), which is involved with aggression, dark or violent thoughts, mild paranoia, mood and temper control, and emotional sta- bility.86 The frontal and temporal regions of the brain are presumed to regulate the expression of aggression, so deficits in those areas may predispose a person to aggressive behavior,87 especially in the presence of negative social influences.88

Evidence suggests that chronic violent offenders have much higher levels of brain disorder when compared to the general population.89

Considerable research suggests that there is a relationship between abnormal levels of certain neurotransmitters and antisocial behavior.90 Neurotransmitters are chemicals in the brain that transmit messages from one neuron to another and are

B I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 43

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

“crucial for most of the brain’s functions, including mood, behavior, [and] emotion.”91 In particular, serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine all have been implicated in antisocial and impulsive behaviors. Serotonin is widely held to be a “braking system” for impulsive drives.92 Abnormally low levels of serotonin have been linked to antisocial behaviors involving impulsivity, including substance abuse, suicidal impulses, and completed suicides.93 On the other hand, high levels of dopamine have been associated with violence, aggression, gambling, and substance abuse.94 Apparently, cocaine increases the level of dopamine, which activates the limbic system to produce pleasure.95 Finally, elevated levels of norepi- nephrine also have been correlated with aggressive behavior.96 While level and activity of neurotransmitters is considered a heritable characteristic, neurotransmit- ters are highly sensitive to environmental manipulations.97 Sociocultural factors such as socioeconomic status, stress, and nutrition have been found to influence the relationship between neurotransmitters and behavior.98

The relationship between low arousal and antisocial and criminal behaviors has been found to be “the strongest psychophysiological finding” in modern bio- criminological research.99 Psychophysiology refers to how a psychological state or process can be measured physiologically. For example, being nervous is a psy- chological state which often leads to “sweaty palms,” a measurable physiological response. A large body of research suggests that low arousal, as indicated by a low resting heart rate, low skin conductance activity, or a disproportionate level of slow- wave EEG (electroencephalogram) patterns, is linked to antisocial or aggressive behavior.100 Autonomic under-arousal has been shown to be at least partially herita- ble;101 nonetheless, there is evidence that its effect on behavior is mediated by spe- cific environmental conditions such as socioeconomic status.102

Low arousal may contribute to aggressive behavior in two ways. First, indi- viduals with low arousal may be unusually fearless and, therefore, not fear pun- ishment, or they may not fear the danger often involved in criminal behavior.103

Second, low arousal may encourage antisocial stimulation-seeking behaviors, including violence, to elevate autonomic arousal to normal levels.104

Although a number of heritable characteristics have been linked to antisocial behavior, several nongenetic factors, such as obstetric factors, exposure to envi- ronmental toxins, and brain injury have been found to increase the likelihood of impulsive and sensation-seeking criminal behavior.105 Compelling evidence links several obstetric factors, such as minor physical anomalies, prenatal nicotine exposure, and birth complications to antisocial behavior.106 Additional research has shown that complications during pregnancy or birth, such as anoxia (lack of oxygen) or preeclampsia (hypertension and fluid retention during pregnancy), may lead to brain damage which, in turn, may predispose a person to antisocial behavior and adult criminality.107 A disruptive family environment has been found to enhance this link considerably.108

Exposure to toxic substances is another factor that has been associated with antisocial behavior.109 Most of this research has focused on exposure to lead, which has been linked to impaired intellectual development, hyperactivity, and impulsivity.110 But other toxic substances linked to aggression and other forms of antisocial behavior include methyl mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),

44 C H A P T E R 4

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

and tobacco.111 The relationship between alcohol use and violence has been well documented.112 Other substance-related factors associated with antisocial behavior are high-sugar diets, certain chemical, mineral, and vitamin deficiencies in the diet, diets high in carbohydrates, hypoglycemia (low blood sugar level), other drugs be- sides alcohol, certain allergies, ingestion of food dyes, exposure to radiation from fluorescent tubes and television sets, and all sorts of brain dysfunctions such as at- tention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.113

Finally, brain injury resulting from head trauma or physical abuse has been associated with aggressive behavior.114 As previously noted, damage to the frontal lobes, which are responsible for planning and the inhibition of impulsive behavior, in particular, is implicated in increased impulsive and aggressive behavior.115 In addition, brain injury has been linked to the inability to understand the difference between right and wrong—a finding that could have a significant impact for de- fendants in criminal cases because the insanity defense is premised upon being able to understand the distinction between the two.116

G E N E R A L P R O B L E M S W I T H B I O L O G I C A L

T H E O R I E S

In the preceding sections, the different biological perspectives and the methodol- ogies of each one have been described. Problems peculiar to a particular perspec- tive or methodology have also been identified. In this section, some of the general problems with nearly all biological theories are presented.

One of the problems with biological theories of crime causation is that their crime prevention implications are so unsavory for many people. For most of the theories, besides those for which specific crime prevention implications already have been identified, the choice is to exterminate, isolate, or sterilize offenders. Despite their distastefulness for some, at one time or another, each of the penalties has been imposed. Regarding sterilization, between 1911 and 1930 in the United States, as part of the eugenics movement, at least sixty-four thousand people were legally sterilized for their “criminality, alcoholism, sodomy, bestiality, feeble- mindedness, and tendency to commit rape.”117 Sterilization was used in the United States well into the 1970s in such states as Virginia and California.118 Today, chem- ical castration is available or mandated in at least eight states—California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin.119

A second problem is that most of the biologically oriented research is methodologically poor.120 For example, generalizations are made from small sam- ples, subjects are not randomly selected or assigned, and there are either no con- trol groups or inadequate ones. This is less true of more recent research, however.

Third, most of the subjects of this research are incarcerated at the time of study, which creates generalization problems.121 Incarcerated offenders are not representative of all offenders (only those who have been caught, convicted, and imprisoned). Nor do prisoners include all people who have the biological trait in question, which makes it impossible to determine whether prisoners are

B I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 45

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

overrepresented with regard to the trait. With only prisoners as subjects, it is im- possible to determine whether any observed effect (such as criminality) is due to the trait in question or to the experiences of confinement.

Fourth, the biology of an individual only provides a behavioral potential, not a realization.122 Many people possess the physical characteristics associated with criminality but do not engage in crime, and many people who lack the physical characteristics associated with criminality do commit crime. Besides, the overall behavioral uniformities that exist in every society, given genetic di- versity, suggest the primary influence of the environment on behavior.123

Fifth, “no behavior is per se criminal.”124 The relationship between biology and crime involves the interaction of biology and environment within the con- text of legislatively proscribed behavior.125 The problem is that biological positi- vists, especially early researchers, rarely question the criminalization process. That is, they rarely consider why some behaviors are defined as criminal, whereas other similar behaviors are not.

Finally, very little of the “crime problem” can be considered to be related pri- marily to biological factors.126 Obviously, the dramatic decrease in the volume and severity of crime during the last two decades (according to government statistics) has not been accompanied by an equally dramatic shift in the biological composition of the population.127 Nor, for that matter, can biological factors easily account for the great variation in crime rates across geographic areas (for example, cities, states, nations). People of different geographic areas are not that different biologically.

In sum, there probably are no positivist criminologists today who would argue that a biological or genetic imperative for crime exists. Nor, for that mat- ter, are there many criminologists today, of any ideological persuasion, who would deny that biology has some influence on criminal behavior. Thus, the position held by most criminologists today is that criminal behavior is the prod- uct of a complex interaction between biology and environmental or social con- ditions.128 What is inherited is not criminal behavior, but rather the way in which the person responds to the environment.129 In short, biology or genetics provides an individual with a predisposition or a tendency to behave in a certain way.130 Whether a person actualizes that predisposition or tendency and whether the subsequent behavior is defined as crime depend primarily on environmental or social conditions.

S T U D Y Q U E S T I O N S

1. What is the cause of crime according to biological theories?

2. What is the perspective on which biological theories of crime causation are based?

3. What methodologies have been used to test the perspective on which biological theories of crime causation are based? (Describe them.)

4. What are some other, newer areas of biological research into crime causation?

46 C H A P T E R 4

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

5. How would biological positivists prevent crime?

6. What are general problems with biological theories of crime causation?

7. How do biological theories of crime causation compare to classical and neoclassical theories?

N O T E S

1. Rafter (2008:10, xi).

2. Vold (1979:51). Structure and function probably are reciprocally related to each other. That is, not only does structure determine function but function also determines structure.

3. See Vold and Bernard (1986:84).

4. Vold (1979:51).

5. See Vold and Bernard (1986:47).

6. Vold (1979:52).

7. “Musings on Physiognomy” (2000:5).

8. “Musings on Physiognomy” (2000:6).

9. Curran and Renzetti (1994:39).

10. Vold and Bernard (1986:48). The theory has also been attributed to the sixteenth- century physiognomist Giovanni Battista Della Porta (see Williams and McShane, 1994:32).

11. Vold and Bernard (1986:48).

12. “Musings on Physiognomy” (2000:7).

13. “Musings on Physiognomy” (2000:5).

14. Vold and Bernard (1986:48).

15. “Phrenology Epitomized” (2000:17).

16. Vold and Bernard (1986:48–49).

17. See Martin, Mutchnik, and Austin (1990:24).

18. Vold and Bernard (1986:48); “Phrenology Epitomized” (2000:17).

19. “Phrenology Epitomized” (2000:17).

20. “Phrenology Epitomized” (2000:18-24).

21. Vold and Bernard (1986:49).

22. Straton (2000:38).

23. Vold and Bernard (1986:49–50).

24. Rafter (2008:13).

25. See Williams and McShane (1994:33).

26. Taylor, Walton, and Young (1974:41).

27. Cited in Taylor et al. (1974:41).

28. See Vold and Bernard (1986:50–51); also see Lombroso (1968:xxii, xxiv, xxv).

29. Ferrero (2000:98).

B I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 47

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

30. Curran and Renzetti (1994:43); also see Lombroso (1968).

31. Lombroso (1968:xxx).

32. Lombroso (2000:79–80).

33. See Smith (2000:357).

34. Lombroso (2000).

35. Fitz Round (2000:236).

36. See Vold and Bernard (1986:57).

37. Gould (1981:125).

38. Gould (1981:125).

39. Goring (1913).

40. Akers and Sellers (2004:48).

41. Lanier and Henry (1998:93).

42. Lanier and Henry (1998:94–95); Lilly, Cullen, and Ball (1989:30); Vold and Bernard (1986:41).

43. Lilly et al. (1989:30); Vold and Bernard (1986:41).

44. Lilly et al. (1989:30–31).

45. Lilly et al. (1989:31).

46. Lanier and Henry (1998:96); Lilly et al. (1989:32–34); Vold and Bernard (1986:44).

47. Lilly et al. (1989:34–35); Vold and Bernard (1986:42).

48. Sheldon (1949).

49. Sheldon (1949).

50. Sheldon (1949).

51. Sheldon (1949).

52. See Vold and Bernard (1986:60).

53. Glueck and Glueck (1956); Cortes (1972).

54. See Curran and Renzetti (1994:53); Vold and Bernard (1986:63).

55. Rafter (2008:168).

56. Dugdale (1877); Estabrook (1916).

57. Estabrook (1916:1–2).

58. Wray and Newitz (1997:2).

59. Fishbein (1990:44).

60. Goring (1913); also see Vold and Bernard (1986:52–55).

61. See Wilson and Herrnstein (1985:90–95); Vold and Bernard (1986:87–90).

62. Curran and Renzetti (1994:59); Fishbein (1990:44–45).

63. Morris (1998:324).

64. See for example Dalgard and Kringlen (1976); but also see Fishbein (1990:44) for a different view.

65. See Wilson and Herrnstein (1985:95–100); Vold and Bernard (1986:90–92).

66. See Vold and Bernard (1986:92); Fishbein (1990:45–46).

67. Walters (1992).

48 C H A P T E R 4

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

68. Cullen and Agnew (2006); Raine (2002b).

69. Jones (2006).

70. Fishbein (2000); Raine (2002b); Rafter (2008:Chap. 8).

71. Baker, Bezdjian, and Raine (2006); Raine (2002b).

72. Scarpa and Raine (2003: 210).

73. Baker et al. (2006).

74. Jones (2006).

75. Baker et al. (2006); Cullen and Agnew (2006); Goldman and Fishbein (2000); Moffitt (1993); Raine (2002a); Raine (2002b); Scarpa and Raine (2003).

76. Raine (2002a).

77. Scarpa and Raine (2003); also see Walsh (2000).

78. Baker et al. (2006); Moffitt (1993), Rowe (2007); Scarpa and Raine (2003).

79. Elliott (2006); Robinson and Kelley (2000); Scarpa and Raine (2003).

80. See for example Fishbein (2000).

81. Shah and Roth (1974); Mark and Ervin (1970).

82. Fishbein (1990:38).

83. Fishbein (1990:37).

84. Raine, Buchsbaum, and LaCasse (1997).

85. Rowe (2007).

86. Raine (2002b:57).

87. Raine (2002b)

88. Raine (2002a).

89. Pallone and Hennessy (1998); Raine et al. (1997).

90. Goldman and Fishbein (2000); Raine (1993); Rowe (2007).

91. Goldman and Fishbein (2000:9–4).

92. Coccaro, Kavoussi, and McNamee (2000).

93. Baker et al. (2006); Lane and Cherek (2000); Rowe (2007).

94. Baker et al. (2006); Goldman and Fishbein (2000).

95. Curran and Renzetti (1994:78); also see Fishbein (1990:47); Ellis and Walsh (1997:259)

96. Lane and Cherek (2000); Raine (1993).

97. Baker et al. (2006).

98. Baker et al. (2006).

99. Raine (2002b:50).

100. Baker et al. (2006); Ortiz and Raine (2004); Raine (2002b); Scarpa and Raine (2003).

101. Baker et al. (2006); Ortiz and Raine (2004); Raine (1993); Scarpa and Raine (2003).

102. Farrington (1997).

103. Raine (1993).

104. Baker et al. (2006); Eysenck (1997).

B I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 49

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

105. Cullen and Agnew (2006); Scarpa and Raine (2003).

106. Raine (2002a).

107. Raine (2002b).

108. Piquero and Tibbetts (1999); Raine (2002a); Raine, Brennan, and Mednick (1994).

109. Baker et al. (2006); Moffitt (1993).

110. Baker et al. 2006; Robinson and Kelley (2000).

111. Lanphear, Vorhees, and Bellinger (2005).

112. Baker et al. (2006).

113. Wakschlag, Pickett, Cook, Benowitz, and Leventhal (2002); Robinson and Kelley (2000); Walters (1992).

114. Baker et al. (2006); Elliott (2006); Robinson and Kelley (2000).

115. Baker et al. (2006).

116. Rowe (2007); Fradella (2007).

117. Lilly et al. (1989:43).

118. Lilly et al. (1989:44).

119. Norman-Eady (2006).

120. National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (NIJJDP) (1977:127); Walters and White (1989); Fishbein (1990:39–40).

121. See Taylor et al. (1974:44, 285, fn. 7); Walters and White (1989:478); Fishbein (1990:39).

122. NIJJDP (1977:110).

123. NIJJDP (1977:110).

124. NIJJDP (1977:111).

125. NIJJDP (1977:111); Fishbein (1990).

126. NIJJDP (1977:111).

127. NIJJDP (1977:111); Taylor et al. (1974:43).

128. See Wilson and Herrnstein (1985:70); Fishbein (1990:41).

129. Fishbein (1990:42).

130. Fishbein (1990:42); Ellis and Walsh (1997:229–230).

50 C H A P T E R 4

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

ROBERT M. BOHM University of Central Florida

and

BRENDA L. VOGEL California State University, Long Beach

A Primer on Crime and Delinquency Theory

T H I R D E D I T I O N

Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10

A Primer on Crime and Delinquency Theory, Third Edition Robert M. Bohm, Brenda L. Vogel

Editor: Carolyn Henderson-Meier

Editorial Assistant: John Chell

Media Editor: Andy Yap

Marketing Manager: Michelle Williams

Marketing Communications Manager: Laura Localio

Content Project Manager: Pre-PressPMG

Art Director: Maria Epes

Print Buyer: Linda Hsu

Permissions Editor: Roberta Broyer

Production Service: Pre-PressPMG

Text Designer: Pre-PressPMG

Cover Designer: Riezebos Holzbaur/Brie Hattey

Cover Image: Corbis Yellow

Compositor: Pre-PressPMG

For product information and technology assistance, contact us at Cengage Learning

Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706

For permission to use material from this text or product, submit all requests online at cengage.com/permissions

Further permissions questions can be emailed to [email protected]

Library of Congress Control Number: 2010926703

ISBN-13: 978-0-495-80750-6

ISBN-10: 0-495-80750-8

Wadsworth 20 Davis Drive Belmont, CA 94002-3098 USA

Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd.

To learn more about Wadsworth, visit www.cengage.com/Wadsworth

Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred online store www.cengagebrain.com

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Psychological Theories

Intelligence and Crime

Psychoanalytic Theories

General Problems with Psychoanalytic Theories

Personality Theories

Humanistic Psychological Theory

I n this chapter, psychological theories of crime causation ( psychological positivism)are examined. The chapter begins with a description of the relationship between intelligence and criminality and proceeds to discussions of psychoanalytic theories, personality, and humanistic psychological theories. Learning or behavioral theories are reserved for the section on the modifications to Sutherland’s differential association theory in Chapter 6.

I N T E L L I G E N C E A N D C R I M E

Attempts to measure intelligence began in the late 1800s and are most closely associated with the work of French psychologist Alfred Binet (1857–1911).1

Although Binet originally developed his intelligence test to identify students who needed extra help in school, other researchers and policy makers in the United States used the intelligence test to measure “innate” intelligence2 and to promote several draconian social policies, such as eugenics.

The idea that crime is the product primarily of people of low intelligence was popular in the United States between 1914 and about 1930. It received some attention again during the mid-1970s and experienced a modest revival in the mid-1990s, beginning with the publication of Richard Herrnstein (1930–1994) and Charles Murray’s (1943– ) The Bell Curve in 1994. The belief requires only a slight shift in thinking from the idea that criminals are biologi- cally inferior to the idea that they are intellectually inferior.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

One of the earliest promoters in the United States of the relationship be- tween low IQ and crime was H. H. Goddard (1866–1957), himself a proponent of the eugenics movement. In 1914, he published Feeblemindedness: Its Causes and Consequences. In the book, Goddard argued that criminals are feebleminded, an old-fashioned term that has been replaced by the more modern mentally challenged (of below-normal intelligence).

To test his proposition, Goddard first had to determine what IQ level consti- tuted feeblemindedness, so he administered IQ tests to all inmates of the New Jersey Training School for the Feebleminded at Vineland where he worked. He discovered that none of the tested residents had a mental age over thirteen and therefore concluded that a mental age of twelve (which is equivalent to an IQ of 75) was the upper-threshold level of feeblemindedness.3 At the time, Goddard believed that an IQ above 75 was normal. Today, however, 90 to 110 is consid- ered the normal range for IQ.

In any event, armed with a standard for feeblemindedness, Goddard and many other psychologists began testing a variety of different populations, includ- ing prison and jail inmates. The proportion of subjects in those studies deter- mined to be feebleminded varied greatly from a low of 28 percent to a high of 89 percent.4 The studies of prisoners, however, revealed that 70 percent had IQs of 75 or less which, for Goddard, provided strong support for his proposition that criminals are feebleminded.5

A problem arose when the Army Psychological Corps adopted Goddard’s standard as a criterion for fitness for military service. When intelligence tests were administered to draftees for World War I, it was discovered using Goddard’s criterion that about one-third of them were feebleminded.6 Whether that was an accurate indicator of the intelligence level of the population at the time (as represented by the draft army) must remain the object of conjecture. However, as a practical matter, the army was not about to eliminate nearly one-third of draftees because of low-level intelligence. Consequently, Goddard changed his conclusions. In 1927, he wrote:

The war led to the measurement of intelligence of the drafted army with the result that such an enormous proportion was found to have an intelligence of 12 years and less that to call them all feeble minded was an absurdity of the highest degree.… We have already said that we thought 12 was the limit, but we now know that most of the twelve, and even of the ten [IQ = 63] and nine [IQ = 56], are not defective.7

In 1931, E. H. Sutherland reviewed approximately 350 studies on the relation- ship between intelligence and delinquency and criminality.8 The studies reported the results of intelligence tests of about 175,000 criminals and delinquents. Sutherland concluded from the review that although intelligence may play a role in individual cases, given the selection that takes place in arrest, conviction, and imprisonment, the distribution of the intelligence scores of criminals and delinquents is very similar to the distribution of the intelligence scores of the general population.

For the next forty years or so, the issue regarding the relationship between intelligence and crime and delinquency appeared resolved. However, in the

52 C H A P T E R 5

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

mid-1970s, two studies were published that resurrected the debate, one by Gordon in 1976 and the other by Hirschi and Hindelang in 1977.9 These stud- ies found that IQ was an important predictor of both official and self-reported delinquency, as important as social class or race.10 Hirschi and Hindelang acknowledged the findings of Sutherland’s earlier review, noting that a decreas- ing number of delinquents had been reported as feebleminded over the years but that the difference in intelligence between delinquents and nondelinquents had never disappeared and had stabilized at about 8 IQ points.11 They failed to note, however, that the 8 point IQ difference generally was within the normal range. Hirschi and Hindelang surmised that the relationship between intelligence and delinquency is indirect; its effect is mediated by school performance.12

In the mid-to-late-1990s, a series of books was published claiming that in- telligence or IQ was primarily the product of genetics, and that genetic differ- ences in intelligence could, in large measure, explain racial differences in crime. Specifically, the theory is that genetic differences in intelligence are the principal reason why Blacks commit a disproportionately high percentage of violent crime and “all categories of felony except those requiring access to large amounts of money, such as stock fraud.”13 In addition to Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve (1994), other books in this genre include J. Philippe Rushton’s Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995), Michael Levin’s Why Race Matters (1997), and Arthur Jensen’s The g Factor (1998).14 The following description of their theory could have been easily placed in Chapter 4 on biological theories, because it is unquestionably biological. However, because of the theory’s focus on IQ as the key explanatory factor, the theory is more accurately called evolutionary biopsychological.

The theory proposes that intelligence, in large measure, determines people’s ability to control or restrain their impulses, and that most “street crime” is caused by people unable to control their impulses.15 Put differently, the theory posits a positive relationship between IQ and impulse control, and a negative relationship between impulse control and crime. The theorists cite a large body of evidence showing significant average differences in IQ scores across different races, with Asians, on average, having the highest IQs, Blacks, on average, having the lowest IQs, and Whites having IQs that, on average, fall between those of Asians and Blacks. The theorists go on to argue that these IQ differences are mostly, but not exclusively, genetic-evolutionary in origin.

Evolutionary biologists generally believe that modern humans evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago, and that some Africans began migrating out of Africa about 110,000 years ago. The further north people migrated out of Africa, the more they encountered different climates and geographies that required dif- ferent skills and lifestyles. The different climates also necessitated differences in skin pigmentation and other physical characteristics and, thus, different races— Whites and Asians—evolved. Asians and Whites presumably split about 40,000 years ago. Because intelligence increased the chances of survival in harsh winter climates, unknown to those in Africa, the migrants had to evolve greater intelli- gence and lifestyle changes—hence the greater average intelligence level of Asians and Whites compared to Blacks. In sum, the theory holds that climatic

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 53

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

and geographical changes genetically altered human beings into different races distinguishable, in part, by average intelligence. Intelligence largely determines impulse-control ability, which, in turn, determines the likelihood of crime.

A corollary of the theory is that less intelligent Blacks are less responsible for their crimes because they have less impulse control.16 This assumption and the race-intelligence-crime theory from which it is derived have been used to justify a number of policies to reduce crimes by Blacks. For example, proponents argue that welfare, especially Aid to Families with Dependent Children, must be elim- inated because it has made “reckless” Black behavior “cost-free.” In addition, race-based penalties must be established if rewards for good behavior prove inef- fective because people with less self-control (disproportionately Blacks) require harsher penalties to deter them from crime. Finally, because Blacks, on average, exercise less self-control than other races and, therefore, are more difficult to de- ter, they should receive swifter punishment and stricter limits on appeals.

In the race-intelligence-crime debate, questions remain about (1) what IQ tests really measure; (2) the degree to which intelligence is a heritable character- istic; and (3) the value of “race” as a reliable, biologically based method of human categorization. Regarding the first concern, Bartol contends, “IQ scores and the concept of intelligence should not be confused. The term IQ merely refers to a standardized score on a test. Intelligence, on the other hand, is a broad, all-encompassing ability that defies any straightforward or simple definition.”17

Evidence suggests that IQ test scores do predict school achievement, but that does not mean that IQ test scores measure intelligence.18 With respect to the second concern, a considerable body of evidence suggests that intelligence is a product of environment, experience, and background in addition to a yet- undetermined degree of innate or natural intelligence (genetics).19 There is gen- eral agreement that some degree of intelligence is innate, but specific genes for intelligence have not been discovered.20

As for the third concern, most researchers argue that skin color is a poor basis upon which to differentiate humans into “races.”21 According to the American Anthropological Association, “differentiating species into biologically defined ‘races’ has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation.”22 Findings from the Human Genome Project also call the race- intelligence-crime theory into serious question. The Human Genome Project is an international research project designed to determine the sequence of chemical base pairs of DNA and to map the physical and functional characteristics of the approximately thirty thousand genes of the human genome.23 Results of this vast project do not support the notion that separate, classifiable “races” exist within modern humans: “While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There is also no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity.”24 Recent research has found that human beings are 99 percent identical genetically.25 In short, results of the Human Genome Project and related research have provided evidence that the concept of race is biologically meaningless and useless.26 This is not to say that race has no real social meaning, because it does, but most scientists agree that it

54 C H A P T E R 5

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

does not have a meaningful biological basis.27 Consequently, the policy implica- tions of the theory that were listed earlier seem harsh, mean-spirited, and racist.

As for intelligence and crime, race notwithstanding, the conclusion cannot be drawn with any degree of confidence that delinquents, as a group, are less intelligent than nondelinquents.28 Most adult criminals are not feebleminded.29

Obviously, low-level intelligence cannot account for gender differences in crime. Since IQ scores do not increase with age, why do most criminal offenders stop committing crimes as they get older? Furthermore, low-level intelligence cer- tainly cannot account for complex white-collar and political crimes.30

P S Y C H O A N A L Y T I C T H E O R I E S

Psychoanalytic theories of crime causation are associated with the work of Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) and his followers.31 Freud did not theorize much about criminal behavior per se, but a theory of crime causation can be inferred from his more general theory of human behavior and its disorders. Had he con- templated the issue, Freud probably would have argued that crime, like other disorders, was a symptom of more deep-seated problems. Considered here are four deep-seated problems of which crime might be considered symptomatic by Freud: (1) difficulties or problems during one of the psychosexual stages of development, (2) an inability to sublimate (or redirect) sexual and aggressive drives, (3) an inability to successfully resolve (as to settle a problem) the Oedipal (in men) or Electra (in women) complex, and (4) an unconscious desire for punishment.

According to Freud, five normal, universal stages characterize human psycho- sexual development: (1) the oral stage, (2) the anal stage, (3) the phallic stage, (4) the latency stage, and (5) the genital stage. Crime has been considered by some psychoanalytic positivists as symptomatic of problems during four of the five stages. The problems are either a fixation (arrested development) at a particular stage or a regression (a return) to an earlier one.

The oral stage of psychosexual development (from birth to around one year old) is the period of breast-feeding, and alcoholism and drug addiction have been considered symptomatic of problems during this stage. Presumably alcohol and drugs satisfy the need for infantile oral pleasure.

The anal stage is the toilet-training period (from one through three years old), and embezzlement and armed robbery have been attributed to problems in this stage. The embezzler or robber unconsciously “holds on to” or “will not let go of ” the symbol for excrement (the stolen goods).

Problems during the phallic stage (around three to six years of age), during which the child begins to understand the pleasure that can be had from his or her sexual organs, have been associated with an excessive interest in sex resulting, in extreme cases, in sexual assault, rape, or prostitution—the result of unresolved Oedipal or Electra conflicts (to be discussed shortly).32 Unresolved Oedipal or Electra conflicts have also been used to explain sexual promiscuity, hostility to- ward male authority figures, and running away.33

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 55

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

No references could be found that associated any criminal behaviors with the latency stage (from about six years of age to puberty), during which the sex drive seems to disappear (it is repressed).

Finally, prostitution and homosexuality (which is not a crime, although in some states certain homosexual acts are) have been considered symptomatic of problems with sexual identity during the genital stage, which begins with the on- set of puberty.

A second deep-seated problem of which crime has been considered symp- tomatic is the inability to sublimate sexual and aggressive drives. For Freud, all human beings are born with those two drives; they are the primary sources of human motivation. Ideally, people are able to sublimate (redirect) sexual and ag- gressive drives either to legal nonsexual or nonaggressive outlets or to legal sexual and aggressive outlets. Examples of the former are reading and hobbies of various sorts; examples of the latter are marriage and contact sports. If unsuccessful at sublimating the drives, they will be either acted out (perhaps as violent criminal behavior) or repressed (rendered unconscious). Unconscious refers to mental pro- cesses of which the person is unaware. If the drives are repressed, they may be acted out anytime in later life, again possibly as criminal behavior. The acting out of repressed sexual and aggressive drives might explain the supposedly inexplica- ble crime, as when the angelic, church-going, Eagle Scout kills, dismembers, and cannibalizes a victim. Repressed sexual and aggressive drives, if not acted out, can lead to mental conflict that manifests itself in anxiety (distress or worry). To keep anxiety under control and to maintain psychic equilibrium, the ego employs a variety of defense mechanisms. Defense mechanisms safeguard the conscious mind against feelings and thoughts that are too difficult to tolerate.

Freud identified a variety of defense mechanisms. Among them are perceptual vigilance (seeing only what you want to see), perceptual defense (blocking out what you do not want to see), repression (forcing ideas out of your conscious mind), rationalization (intentionally misperceiving or redefining a situation), introjection (internalizing attributes of external objects or people and making them a part of your personality), and projection (attributing one’s own repressed thoughts or emotions to someone else, e.g., projecting self-hatred onto victims).

A third deep-seated problem of which crime has been considered symptom- atic is the inability to successfully resolve the Oedipal (in men) or Electra (in women) complex. This inability explains why an individual fails to develop a strong superego. For Freud, the superego, together with the id and the ego, are the three parts of the mind. The superego is the conscience or source of morality and is mainly unconscious. Its functions include (1) approval or disapproval of the ego’s actions, that is, judgment that an act is “right” or “wrong”; (2) critical self-observation; (3) self-punishment; and (4) self-love or self-esteem. The id is the energy system of the mind (libido); it is the source of the instinctive sexual and aggressive drives. The id resides in the unconscious and is governed by the pleasure principle; in other words, it only seeks pleasure. The id is controlled by the ego and superego. The ego is the part of the mind that mediates between the individual and reality. It is governed by the reality principle. Its prime function is the perception of reality and adaptation to it so as to maximize pleasure and

56 C H A P T E R 5

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

minimize pain. The ego does not judge right from wrong or good from bad, which is the job of the superego.

Although concern here is with superego problems, it is important to note that criminality has also been attributed to a weak ego. An individual with a weak ego is characterized by “immaturity, poorly developed social skills, poor reality testing, gullibility and excessive dependence.”34 Such an individual may stumble into trouble because of a misreading of the external environment, tem- per tantrums, or following the lead of someone else.35

Returning to the Oedipal and Electra complexes, between the ages of three and six (during the phallic stage of psychosexual development), the child devel- ops a monopoly feeling for the opposite-sexed parent. For Freud, this is a nor- mal, universal process. At this age (during which the ego already has developed), the child realizes that the like-sexed parent will get mad if the other parent di- rects all of his or her attention to the child. The male child (we will return to the female child shortly) becomes afraid that his father will castrate him if this occurs. Because of a fear of castration, the little boy represses his desire for his mother and overreacts and identifies with his father. Presumably, the repressed desire for the mother manifests itself in little boys at this age frequently hating girls. In any event, the father (for males) is the symbol of the norms of society; he identifies symbolically right from wrong. If the process proceeds naturally, the little boy will develop normally, that is, develop a strong superego capable of controlling the id. However, if the father is cruel or if there is no father figure (note that a biological father is unnecessary), the little boy will not identify with the father and thus will not internalize the norms or authority of society. In other words, he will not develop a strong superego capable of controlling the id.

Needless to say, the process does not work in exactly the same way for little girls. Freud resolved the obvious difficulty by suggesting that females had “penis envy” and reacted to a fear of symbolic castration. Other than overreacting and identifying with the mother, who, for little girls, represents the norms of society, the rest of the process operates the same way.

Individuals who do not successfully resolve the Oedipal or Electra complex and thus do not develop a strong superego capable of controlling the id were called psychopaths by Freud. A lack of empathy for others, a lack of compassion for others, no subjective conscience, and no sense of right and wrong character- ize psychopaths. Psychopathy and its connection to crime will be discussed at greater length in a later section.

Finally, a fourth deep-seated problem of which crime has been considered symptomatic is an unconscious desire for punishment. In his essay “Criminality from a Sense of Guilt” (1915), Freud described the phenomenon.36 He suggested that some people, with a strong or overdeveloped superego, commit crimes in order to be caught and punished—not for the crime for which they had been caught, but for something that they had done in the past about which they felt guilty and for which they were not caught or punished. Obviously, this theory does not explain the large numbers of successful criminals.

The principal policy implication of considering crime symptomatic of deep- seated problems is to provide psychotherapy or psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is a

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 57

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

procedure, first developed by Freud that among other things attempts to make patients conscious or aware of unconscious and deep-seated problems to resolve the symptoms associated with them. Methods used include a variety of projective tests (such as the interpretation of Rorschach inkblots), dream interpretation, and free association. Another policy implication that derives logically from Freudian theory is to provide people with legal outlets to sublimate or redirect their sexual and aggressive drives. Psychoanalysis and the psychoanalytic theory on which it is based are components of a medical model of crime causation that had, to varying degrees, informed criminal justice policy in the United States for a century be- tween the mid-1870s and the mid-1970s. The general conception of this medical model is that criminals are biologically or, in this case, psychologically “sick” and in need of treatment.

G E N E R A L P R O B L E M S W I T H

P S Y C H O A N A L Y T I C T H E O R I E S

First, although evidence indicates that at least some criminal offenders have psy- chological problems, the bulk of the research on the issue suggests that most criminals are not psychologically disturbed or, at least, no more disturbed than the rest of the population.37 Few criminal offenders have major psychiatric disorders.38

Second, even if a person who commits a crime has a psychological distur- bance that does not mean that the psychological disturbance causes the crime. Many people with psychological disturbances do not commit crimes, and many people without psychological disturbances do commit crimes.39

Third, there are problems with psychotherapy and the theory on which it is based. For example, psychoanalytic theory and psychotherapy as an approach to rehabilitation generally focus on the individual offender and not on the individ- ual offender in interaction with the environment in which the criminal behavior occurs.40 Criminal behavior is considered a personal problem and not a social one. Yet, the personality may not play a significant role in the cause of criminal behavior.41 The theory also suggests that the personality is set in early childhood and remains relatively stable over time. This may not be true and seems to pre- clude the possibility of personality change.

Psychotherapy rests on faith. Much of its theoretical structure is scientifically untestable. Unconscious processes, which play such a major role in psychoana- lytic theories, can only be measured indirectly.

Psychoanalytic theories of crime have also been criticized for being based on circular reasoning. That is, criminal behavior is presumed to be caused by mental illness which, itself, is indicated by the criminal behavior.42

Another criticism of Freud’s theory has to do with its generalizability. The theory is based on Freud’s work with mostly upper-middle-class and upper-class female patients.43 Some critics wonder whether the theory applies equally well to other types of people.

58 C H A P T E R 5

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

The behaviors that are treated in psychotherapy are not criminal; they are the deep-seated problems.44 Criminal behavior is assumed to be symptomatic of the deep-seated problems. That assumption may not be true. Many people who do not engage in crime have deep-seated problems, and many people who do not have deep-seated problems do engage in crime.

Another problem is that psychoanalytic “talking therapies” require the client to have a reasonable level of verbal intelligence,45 an ability that many criminal offenders lack. A related problem is that psychotherapy rests on the assumption that if people change their verbal behavior (through psychotherapy), they will change their actual behavior.46 That assumption may not be true. What people say and do often are very different.

Most psychotherapies also require the client to be strongly motivated to sit through weekly (or more frequent) sessions for a year or longer.47 Many criminal offenders do not have the necessary motivation to complete (or to engage in) the lengthy process. From a practical standpoint, even if criminal offenders were mo- tivated to complete the lengthy process, the delivery of long-term psychother- apy, especially the one-on-one variety, is too expensive and inefficient to be used widely in correctional settings anyway.48 Perhaps the most telling problem is that people who receive psychiatric and psychoanalytical treatment generally are no more likely to be cured than people who do not receive such treatment.49

Many years ago, in reviewing the impact of psychiatry on corrections, Paul W. Tappan made an observation that is still relevant today:

The focus upon mental pathology has resulted in a conception of criminals as sick people.… The prevalent idea of criminal illness is highly misleading. Criminals are not generally neurotic, psychotic, or psychopathic.… Worse, by merely attaching a general label to the offender, one may be led to assume quite erroneously that the problem has been solved thereby or that it is necessary only to provide some vague psychotherapy to resolve the difficulty.50

P E R S O N A L I T Y T H E O R I E S

Personality refers to “the complex set of emotional and behavioral attributes that tend to remain relatively constant as the individual moves from situation to situation.”51 Over the last hundred years, tests have been developed to measure personality characteristics like extroversion, shyness, timidity, friendliness, and so on. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is one of the most widely used personality tests. It includes a list of 567 statements that mea- sure a number of traits including, but not limited to, psychopathic deviate, social introversion, depression, and paranoia. More recently, several other measures of personality have been developed including Costa, Jr. and McCrae’s five-factor model,52 Eysenck’s PEN (Psychoticism, Extraversion, Neuroticism) model,53

Tellegen’s three-factor model,54 and Cloninger’s temperament and character

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 59

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

model.55 These tests differ from the MMPI by measuring personality more broadly, rather than focusing on “pathological” elements.56

Although many criminologists tend to dismiss the importance of personality, psychologists and some criminologists have identified personality traits that are linked to aggressive or criminal behavior.57 In 1950, an extensive study of five hundred delinquents and five hundred nondelinquents by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck found that delinquents were “more extroverted, vivacious, impulsive, and less self-controlled than the nondelinquents; they were also “more hostile, resentful, defiant, suspicious, and destructive.”58 More recently, Caspi and his colleagues examined the relationship between personality traits and delinquency in a sample of youth from New Zealand and the United States.59 Their results show that youth who score high in “negative emotionality” and low in “con- straint” are more likely to be involved in delinquency than those who score low in “negative emotionality” and high in “constraint.”60 Youth high on negative emotionality “have a low general threshold for the experience of negative emo- tions such as fear, anxiety, and anger, and tend to break down under stress.”61

Youth who score low on constraint tend to reject conventional norms, seek thrills, and act in an unconstrained and fearless manner.62 Caspi and his collea- gues surmise that negative emotionality and constraint are “a constellation of personality traits, not merely a single trait, that might be linked to criminal involvement.”63

Miller and Lynam conducted a meta-analysis of nearly sixty studies that exam- ined personality and antisocial behavior.64 (A meta-analysis is a statistical technique that provides a systematic overview of quantitative research that has examined a particular question.) Their findings show that antisocial individuals tend to score fairly low on scales of “agreeableness” and “conscientiousness.”65 In other words, antisocial individuals are “hostile, self-centered, spiteful, jealous, and indifferent to others” (i.e., low in “agreeableness”). They also tend to “lack ambition, motiva- tion, and perseverance, have difficulty controlling their impulses, and hold nontra- ditional and unconventional values and beliefs” (i.e., low in “conscientiousness”).66

One personality type that has received considerable attention from researchers and the popular media is the psychopath (also called sociopath and antisocial personality). Based on what psychiatrists know about the psychopathic personality, the popular image of the “psychopathic killer” or “violent socio- path” may be overstated. According to Lilienfeld and Arkowitz, psychopathy:

consists of a specific set of personality traits and behaviors. Superficially charming, psychopaths tend to make a good first impression on others and often strike observers as remarkably normal. Yet they are self- centered, dishonest and undependable, and at times they engage in irresponsible behavior for no apparent reason other than the sheer fun of it. Largely devoid of guilt, empathy and love, they have casual and callous interpersonal and romantic relationships. Psychopaths routinely offer excuses for their reckless and often outrageous actions, placing blame on others instead. They rarely learn from their mistakes or benefit from negative feedback, and they have difficulty inhibiting their impulses.67

60 C H A P T E R 5

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Although they are overrepresented in prisons—up to 25 percent of all in- mates by some estimates68—psychopaths are as likely to be successful in the world of business and politics as to turn to crime.69 Psychopaths are more likely to be male than female, and psychopathy is present in different cultures.70 De- spite the way they are often portrayed in the popular media, most psychopaths are not violent, and most violent people are not psychopaths.71 Psychopaths are almost always rational and rarely have psychotic breaks with reality. However, psychiatrists disagree about whether psychopaths can benefit from treatment.72

Some psychiatrists argue that psychopaths can be taught “basic pro-social life skills to help them avoid the needless troubles that their behaviors cause.”73

Other psychiatrists recommend that psychopaths should “be locked up until they reach middle age, or even that they be executed.”74

Samuel Yochelson (1906–1976) and Stanton Samenow (1941– ) developed a theory of the criminal personality that, in many respects, is similar to the theory of the psychopath.75 The criminal personality and the psychopath share many of the same characteristics. A notable difference between the two theories is that individuals with a criminal personality, according to Yochelson and Samenow, freely choose to commit their crimes, whereas the psychopath’s behavior is pre- sumed to be determined by psychological factors (most notably in Freud’s view by an unresolved Oedipal or Electra complex). Another difference between the two theories is that fear (of embarrassment, injury, and death) is a key compo- nent of the criminal personality but not of the psychopath.

The notion of a “violence-prone personality” has received little support.76

Rather, most researchers suggest that certain personality characteristics, in com- bination with environmental stimuli, can increase the likelihood that some peo- ple will engage in aggressive or criminal behavior.77 That said, the mystery remains as to why some people satisfy their desire for thrills or their rejection of conventional norms through legal activity such as bungee jumping or getting a tattoo, while others engage in illegal activity such as assaulting a rival or cheat- ing on their taxes.

H U M A N I S T I C P S Y C H O L O G I C A L T H E O R Y

Humanistic psychological theory refers primarily to the work of Abraham Maslow, Seymour Halleck, and Philip Zimbardo. The theories of Maslow and Halleck are fundamentally psychoanalytic, but here they are called humanistic because they assume that human beings are basically good even though sometimes they are constrained by society to act badly. By contrast, the Freudian theories assume that human beings are inherently bad, motivated by sexual and aggressive drives. Zimbardo’s theory is social-psychological, but it also assumes that human beings are basically good even though situational factors sometimes cause them to do evil.

Abraham Maslow (1908–1970) attempted to integrate insights from several neo-Freudians, including Alfred Adler (1870–1937), Erik Erikson (1902–1994), Karen Horney (1885–1952), and Erich Fromm (1900–1980) into a single theoretical

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 61

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

framework. Maslow did not apply his theory to crime per se, but inferences are made from Maslow’s work about what he would have said about the causes of crime had he addressed the subject.

Maslow postulated that human beings are motivated by a need hierarchy com- prising five basic levels of needs.78 The most basic of the needs are the physiologi- cal needs (food, water, and procreational sex). Next are the safety needs (security, stability, freedom from fear, anxiety, chaos, and so forth) followed, in order, by the belongingness and love needs, the esteem needs (self-esteem and the esteem of others), and, finally, the need for self-actualization (being what one can, being true to one’s nature, and becoming everything that one is capable of becoming). According to Maslow, during a given period a person’s life is dominated by a particular need. It remains dominated by that need until the need has been rela- tively satisfied, at which time a new need emerges to dominate the person’s life. From this view, crime may be understood as a means by which individuals satisfy their basic human needs. They choose crime because they cannot satisfy their needs legally or, for whatever reason, choose not to satisfy their needs legally.

An obvious crime prevention implication of the theory is to help people satisfy their basic human needs in legitimate ways. In his presidential address to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Francis T. Cullen (1951– ) argued that the relatively high crime rates in the United States, compared to other industri- alized nations, are at least partly the result of inadequate social support.79 Social support is the provision, both the perceived and the actual provision, of such diverse things as material aid, financial assistance, advice, guidance, emotional support, feedback, social reinforcement, and socializing.80 Cullen notes that so- cial support can occur at different social levels: “Micro-level support can be de- livered by a confiding individual, such as a spouse or a best friend. But social support also can be viewed as a property of social networks and of communities and larger ecological units in which individuals are enmeshed.”81

Cullen, sounding very much like a radical criminologist (he maintains that “notions of social support appear in diverse criminological writings”), concludes his address by criticizing “the excessive individualism in the United States, which too often degenerates into a politics justifying either the crass pursuit of rights or materialistic self-aggrandizement.”82 He notes that “in this context, there is a lack of attention to the public good, service to others, and an appreciation for our need for connectedness.”83 Thus, his address is “a call to revitalize our com- mon bonds and to build a society supportive of all its citizens.”84 Maslow likely would agree.

Seymour L. Halleck (1929– ) views crime as one among several different adaptations to the helplessness caused by oppression.85 For Halleck, there are two general types of oppression, objective and subjective. Each has two subtypes. The subtypes of objective oppression are social oppression (for example, oppression resulting from racial discrimination) and the oppression that occurs in two-person interactions (for instance, a parent’s unfair restriction of a child’s activities). The subtypes of subjective oppression are oppression from within (guilt from the super- ego) and projected or misunderstood oppression (a person’s feeling of being oppressed when, in fact, he or she is not).

62 C H A P T E R 5

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

For Halleck, the subjective emotional experience of either type of oppres- sion is helplessness, which is adapted to by the individual in one of six different ways. Some people adapt to the feeling of helplessness by simply conforming, that is, accepting the oppression and feeling of helplessness; sometimes suffering in silence; accepting the rules of society. Other people adapt through activism, that is, active efforts to change the environment by following the rules. Halleck notes that a combination of conformity and activism is generally considered nor- mal by society. Another adaptation is a different type of activism where the indi- vidual attempts to change the environment by legal attempts to change the rules of society. Mental illness, which involves an indirect effort to change the environ- ment through the communication of suffering, is a fifth possible adaptation, and criminality is the sixth type. Criminality is the attempt to change the environment by illegally breaking the rules of society or by creating new but illegal rules.

Halleck suggests that the criminal adaptation is more likely when alternative adaptations are not possible or are blocked by other people. He also maintains that criminal behavior is sometimes chosen as an adaptation over other possible alter- natives because it offers gratifications (psychological advantages) that could not be achieved otherwise.86 Halleck lists fourteen psychological advantages of crime:87

1. The adaptational advantages of crime in changing one’s environment are more desirable than illness or conformity.

2. Crime involves activity, and when man is engaged in motoric behavior, he feels less helpless.

3. However petty a criminal act may be, it carries with it a promise of change in a favorable direction.

4. During the planning and execution of a criminal act the offender is a free man. (He is immune from the oppressive dictates of others.)

5. Crime offers the possibility of excitement.

6. Crime calls for the individual to maximize his faculties and talents which might otherwise lie dormant.

7. Crime can relieve feelings of inner oppression and stress.

8. Crime increases external stresses which allow the individual to concentrate upon these threats to his equilibrium and temporarily allow him to abandon his chronic intrapsychic problems.

9. Once a person has convinced himself that the major pressures in his life come from without, there is less tendency to blame himself for his failures.

10. Adopting the criminal role provides an excellent rationalization for inadequacy.

11. Crime has a more esteemed social status than mental illness.

12. America has an ambivalent attitude toward crime. Although crime is regu- larly condemned, it is also glamorized.

13. Deviant behavior sometimes helps the criminal to form close and relatively nonoppressive relations with other criminals.

14. Crime can provide pleasure or gratify needs.

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 63

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Halleck’s theory suggests at least three crime prevention implications. First, sources of social oppression should be eliminated wherever possible. Second, alternative, legal ways of coping with oppression must be provided. Third, psy- chotherapy should be provided for subjective oppressions.

Besides some of the general criticisms of positivist theories and psychother- apy listed in the last section, a major problem with the theories of both Maslow and Halleck is that they do not go far enough. That is, they do not identify and analyze the sources of need deprivation (in Maslow’s theory) and objective op- pression (in Halleck’s theory) and their more fundamental relationship to crimi- nality, however defined.

Philip Zimbardo (1933– ) is perhaps best known for the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE), which has informed his theory of crime and other “evil” be- haviors.88 In the experiment, “normal” (determined by a battery of tests) male Stanford University student volunteers were randomly assigned to be guards or prisoners in a simulated prison environment. In less than a week, the guards had become dominant and abusive toward the prisoners. The prisoners, in turn, be- came “mindlessly obedient to the guards’ demands” and seemed “zombie-like.” The prisoner role dominated all expressions of individual behavior as the prison- ers became fixated on their present circumstances and adopted and accepted the guards’ negative images of them. Half of the prisoners had to be released early from the experimental prison because of severe emotional and cognitive pro- blems that did not last long but were intense at the time. Even Zimbardo and some of his other experimenter colleagues got caught up in the experimental conditions and did things they later regretted.

The primary lesson of the SPE for Zimbardo is that situational and systemic factors influence good people to do evil things, more so than individualistic or dispositional factors, such as genetic makeup, personality traits, character, or free will.89 In defining the relationship between the person, situation, and system, Zimbardo writes:

The Person is an actor on the stage of life whose behavioral freedom is informed by his or her makeup—genetic, biological, physical, and psy- chological. The Situation is the behavioral context that has the power, through its reward and normative functions, to give meaning and iden- tity to the actor’s roles and status. The System consists of the agents and agencies whose ideology, values, and power create situations and dictate the roles and expectations for approved behaviors of actors within its spheres of influence.90

Put somewhat differently, situational factors, such as the prison environment and its rules and roles, are the behavioral or social contexts that influence the human action of those under their control. For most people, situational factors are difficult to resist. Systemic factors, such as political and economic power structures and their rules and roles, create situational factors by providing institu- tional support, authority, and resources. The fundamental problem for Zimbardo, in short, is that “ ‘bad systems’ create ‘bad situations’ create ‘bad apples’ create ‘bad behaviors,’ even in good people.”91

64 C H A P T E R 5

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Another lesson of the SPE is that all people are capable of serious criminal behavior under the right situational circumstances. In other words, everyone can learn to be good or evil regardless of genetic inheritance, personality, or family legacy. A third lesson is that by assuming a good versus evil dichotomy, that is, the idea that “criminals” are fundamentally different from “noncriminals,” as is done in the U.S. legal system, for example, “good” people can deny their com- plicity in “creating, sustaining, perpetuating, or conceding to the conditions” that contribute to crime. Zimbardo cautions that this understanding does not excuse a person’s criminal behavior or absolve him or her from responsibility; it only pro- vides a better theory of criminal behavior and a guide to more productive ways of dealing with it. According to Zimbardo, by understanding how social influ- ence operates and how people become vulnerable to it, people can resist it in- stead of being manipulated by it. He advocates addressing criminal behavior using a public health model rather than a medical model of criminality.

Zimbardo’s critics argue that there is “little scientific evidence indicating that situations are more important than dispositions for explaining behavior.” They point out that a recent summary of more than twenty-five thousand studies shows that “personality and situations contribute almost equally to various out- comes, and many studies demonstrate the complex ways in which people react differently to similar situations.” Critics maintain that “people vary in their pro- pensity for antisocial behavior and that environments transact with personalities.” They claim that “some people are more likely to turn out to be bad apples than others, and this is particularly evident in certain situations.”92

Many of Zimbardo’s ideas have their origins in the symbolic interactionism of George Herbert Mead and appear to have influenced some critical criminologists, such as Stuart Henry and Dragan Milovanovic (all are addressed in Chapter 7).

S T U D Y Q U E S T I O N S

1. What is the relationship between intelligence and criminality and delinquency?

2. In Freudian theory, what is crime? What are examples of causes of crime in Freudian theory?

3. What has research discovered about the relationship between personality and criminality?

4. How would Maslow explain crime?

5. How would Halleck explain crime?

6. How would Zimbardo explain crime?

7. What are some crime prevention implications of psychological/psychoana- lytic theories?

8. What are some general problems with psychological/psychoanalytic theories of crime causation?

9. How do psychological/psychoanalytic theories of crime causation compare with theories previously described in this book?

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 65

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

N O T E S

1. Curran and Renzetti (2001).

2. Curran and Renzetti (2001).

3. See Vold and Bernard (1986:72).

4. Vold and Bernard (1986:72).

5. See Vold and Bernard (1986:72); also see Gould (1981).

6. Vold (1979:83).

7. Quoted in Vold (1979:83).

8. Sutherland and Cressey (1974:152).

9. R. Gordon (1976); Hirschi and Hindelang (1977).

10. R. Gordon (1976); Hirschi and Hindelang (1977); also see Vold and Bernard (1986:77); Andrews and Bonta (1994:133). Note that the studies dealt with delinquency and not adult criminality.

11. Hirschi and Hindelang (1977); also see Vold and Bernard (1986:78).

12. Also see Wilson and Herrnstein (1985:171, Chap. 10); Denno (1985).

13. Levin (1997:291).

14. Also see Ellis and Walsh (1997). For a critique of The Bell Curve and by implication the other books, see Cullen, Gendreau, Jarjoura, and Wright (1997).

15. The following description is from Rushton (1995) and Levin (1997). The latter proposition is shared by social control theory described in Chapter 6.

16. See Levin (1997:324–327).

17. Bartol (1991:132).

18. Winfree and Abadinsky (2010).

19. Gould (1996).

20. Sternberg, Grigorenko, and Kidd (2005:52).

21. Sternberg et al. (2005:50).

22. See the AAA website at http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/AAA- Statement-on-Race.cfm.

23. Patrinos (2004).

24. Human Genome Project Information at http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/ Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml (accessed August 18, 2009).

25. Connor (2006).

26. Mountain and Risch (2004:S48).

27. Smedley and Smedley (2005).

28. Vold (1979:97); however, see Andrews and Bonta (1994:133) for a different view.

29. Vold (1979:97).

30. See Vold (1979:97); Cullen et al. (1997:391).

31. Unless indicated otherwise, material in this section is from Freud (1953); Hutchins (1952); Andrews and Bonta (1994); Woodworth and Sheehan (1964); Hall (1954). Theorists who have applied psychoanalytic theory to the explanation of crime and delinquency are Aichorn (1935); Healy and Bronner (1926, 1936); Alexander and

66 C H A P T E R 5

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Healy (1935); Abrahamsen (1944, 1960); Friedlander (1947); Redl and Wineman (1951, 1952).

32. Einstadter and Henry (1995:110).

33. Martin, Mutchnick, and Austin (1990:79).

34. Andrews and Bonta (1994:74).

35. Andrews and Bonta (1994:74).

36. Also see Martin et al. (1990:78–79).

37. See Curran and Renzetti (1994:128).

38. Andrews and Bonta (1994:210).

39. Curran and Renzetti (1994:110).

40. See Jeffery (1977:132, 138).

41. Vold and Bernard (1986:128); but see Andrews and Bonta (1994:63) for the opposite view.

42. Einstadter and Henry (1995:116–117); Curran and Renzetti (1994:128); Vold and Bernard (1986:116).

43. Martin et al. (1990:84).

44. See Jeffery (1977:138–139).

45. Andrews and Bonta (1994:195).

46. See Jeffery (1977:138).

47. Andrews and Bonta (1994:195).

48. Andrews and Bonta (1994:195).

49. Vold and Bernard (1986:117).

50. Tappan (1951:11).

51. Bernard, Snipes, and Gerould (2010).

52. McCrae and Costa (1990).

53. Eysenck (1977).

54. Tellegen (1985).

55. Cloninger, Svrakic, and Przybeck (1993).

56. Bernard et al. (2010:73).

57. Cullen and Agnew (2006).

58. Glueck and Glueck (1950: 275).

59. Caspi et. al. (1994).

60. Caspi et. al. (1994).

61. Caspi et. al. (1994: 169).

62. Caspi et. al. (1994).

63. Caspi et. al. (1994: 167).

64. Miller and Lynam (2001).

65. Miller and Lynam (2001).

66. Miller and Lynam (2001).

67. Lilienfeld and Arkowitz (2007–2008:80).

68. Lilienfeld and Arkowitz (2007–2008).

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 67

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

69. Winfree and Abadinsky (2010).

70. Lilienfeld and Arkowitz (2007–2008).

71. Lilienfeld and Arkowitz (2007–2008).

72. Bernard et al. (2010).

73. Bernard et al. (2010:75). See also Hare (1999).

74. Bernard et al. (2010:75).

75. See Yochelson and Samenow (1976).

76. Walters (2000:186).

77. Walters (2000).

78. Maslow (1970, originally published in 1954).

79. Cullen (1994).

80. Cullen (1994:530).

81. Cullen (1994:530–531); also see Chamlin and Cochran (1997) and DeFronzo (1997).

82. Cullen (1994:551).

83. Cullen (1994:551–552).

84. Cullen (1994:552). Cullen and Wright (1997) have recently combined social support theory and general strain theory (see Chapter 6).

85. Halleck (1967).

86. See Katz (1988) for a similar view.

87. Halleck (1967:76–80).

88. Zimbardo (2008); also see Warr (2002:64–65).

89. This also was the lesson of psychologist Stanley Milgram’s famous experiment of obedience to authority. See Milgram (1974).

90. Zimbardo (2008:445–446).

91. Zimbardo (2008:445).

92. Donnellan, Fraley, and Krueger (2007).

68 C H A P T E R 5

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

bohm07508_0495807508_02.03_chapter03

Chapter 3: Positivist Theories

Positive Philosophy
The Influence Of Empirical Or Experimental Science
Major Differences Between Positivism And Classicism/Neoclassicism
General Problems With Positivist Theories
Study Questions
Notes

bohm07508_0495807508_02.04_chapter04

Chapter 4: Biological Theories

Physiognomy And Phrenology
Criminal Anthropology
Body Type Theories
Heredity Studies
Modern Biocriminology
General Problems With Biological Theories
Study Questions
Notes

bohm07508_0495807508_02.05_chapter05

Chapter 5: Psychological Theories

Intelligence And Crime
Psychoanalytic Theories
General Problems With Psychoanalytic Theories
Personality Theories
Humanistic Psychological Theory
Study Questions
Notes