The Linebach & Kovacsiss text discusses 2 opposing criminological theories of crime. To what
extent have psychologically-oriented criminological theories changed since Tarde and
Lombroso? Explain in detail what you believe to be the biblical substitute for criminological
theory.
The student will complete 3 Discussions in this course. The student will post one thread of at
at least 400 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Sunday of the assigned Module: Week. The student must
then post 2 replies of at least 250 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Sunday of the following Module:
Week. For each thread, students must support their assertions with at least 3 scholarly citations in
APA format. Each reply must incorporate at least 2 scholarly citations in APA format.
Acceptable sources include the textbooks, peer-reviewed articles, and the Bible.
The criminological theories created by Tarde and Lombroso directly resemble the nature versus
nurture debate. Tarde’s “Laws of Imitation” are on the nurture side of the debate. Tarde believed
that society and family life played a direct part in if an individual turned to crime. In summary,
an inferior individual will imitate a more superior person depending on the length of time spent
together; if said inferior person is exposed to crime through the superior person, they too will
turn to crime (Linebach & Kovacsiss, 2016). Lombroso believed criminal tendencies were based
on nature, they were born to be a criminal. The theory centered around how criminals were
“biological throwbacks' ' and were not as evolved as noncriminals, and this could be proven
through studying physical characteristics (Linebach & Kovacsiss, 2016).
All criminological theories are similar in that the basis is based on nature, nurture, or some
variation of both. Because of this, I believe criminological theories involving biology have
evolved majorly because technology has advanced. Technology has given us a way to deeply
access the human brain, and these discoveries allow us to compare brain development with
criminals and noncriminals. This allows for new theories to develop in a way that is more
specific based on findings. In terms of nature, social learning theory is a more specific
advancement of the law of imitation. It takes the same basics, you imitate others and adapt to
their criminal tendencies, and then it adds in aspects such as social reinforcement (Krohn et al.,
1984). Deviance can be awarded depending on the social group you involve yourself with, or
even in high crime areas. Criminological theories have advanced greatly from Tarde and
Lomrboso, but not too far that similarities cannot be seen.
I believe the biblical substitute for criminological theory are theories that represent the nurture
side, such as Laws of Imitation, or more recently, the Social Learning Theory. This is because
God created humans in his image, and Adam and Eve were without sin until they ate the
forbidden fruit. This should show that it was not biological because Adam and Eve were coerced
into putting their desires above Gods, thus creating the first sin. 1 Corinthians 15:33 states, “Do
not be deceived, bad company ruins good morals.” (English Standard Version Bible, 2016). I
think this accurately coincides with the Law of Imitation and how the people we associate
ourselves with have the power to influence our actions. After people started sinning, with time,
perhaps it came to be that biology came into play.
References
English Standard Version Bible. (2016). ESV Online. https://www.esv.org/1+Corinthians+15/
Krohn, M. D., Kaduce, L. L., & Akers, R. L. (1984). Community Context and Theories of
Deviant Behavior: An Examination of Social Learning and Social Bonding Theories.
Sociological Quarterly, 25(3), 353. http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F
%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fcommunity-context-theories-deviant-
behavior%2Fdocview%2F1308393059%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D12085
Linebach, J., & Kovacsiss, L. (2016). An Introduction to Crime. In Psychology in the justice system.
Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.
– adam and eve perfect until sin
– crime is nature
– eventually with sin, criminals started evolving and now is biological
-Do not be deceived, bad company ruins good morals. 1 Corintians 15:33
Tarde was wholly convinced of the behavioral side of delinquency, while Lombroso was equally
committed to the biological factors contributing to delinquency.
– However, “Tarde rejected Lombroso’s theory that crime was caused by biological abnormality,
arguing that criminals were primarily normal people who, by accident of birth, were brought up
in an atmosphere in which they learned crime as a way of life”
Tarde’s “laws of imitation” are threefold: The first law purported by Tarde suggests that the
degree to which an individual imitates another is directly related to the amount of time exposed
to that individual. The second law formally states the above-stated principle: that the superior
member is mimicked by the inferior member. The third law proposes that old habits or ways of
doing something are replaced by newer ways or habits, implying a constant change in the
imitated behavior (Vold, Bernard, & Snipes, 1998).
it was Tarde’s conviction that people, criminals in particular, were walking around as zombies,
simply watching others and copying what they saw.
Tarde that he succeeded in stressing the importance of social factors in the causation of crime
– The foundational tenant of Lombroso’s theory was his belief in atavism or the idea that
criminals were biological throwbacks, people more primitive and less highly evolved than
noncriminal people
For Lombroso, physical characteristics were the only causal factors of criminal behavior that
were worth analyzing.
Klempner and Parker (1981) summarize Lombroso’s theory into four segments: First, each of
those who are prone to crime has a physical type that is distinctive and noticeable from his or her
birth. Second, those who are prone to crime can be recognized by those distinctive
characteristics. Third, it emphasizes the notion that causality cannot be drawn from these
characteristics, but rather aid in the identification of those who would be more prone to certain
crimes. Fourth, it maintains that the method of intervention for these individuals is relentless
socialization.
book were autopsies of dead criminals and assessments of the physical characteristics of living
criminals. However, he never tested his theories by comparing criminals’ characteristics to those
of non-criminals
REPLY 1
-Taken lmbrosos look at physical features and now look for common features in the brain
-differences in the brain may make an individual more predisposed to commit
crime, these often need to be combined with a multitude of other factors –
both genetic and environmental – before said criminality occurs.
-In true nature vs nurture, both factor into criminality
-How difficult it is for criminologsts to narrow motives down - lots of reasons to commit
crimes
-Recidivism and rehabilitation - baloch
-Positivist way of thinking - no free will - masters
Megan,
At first I thought it was funny that Lombroso would claim that criminals have similar physical
characteristics. But now I can understand how at that time and with his stance on biology, that he
believed our genes were responsible for criminal tendencies. So in his mind, that can result in
offenders having similar genes and therefore physical characteristics. He was simply looking in
the wrong places, whereas now we look at the brain to try and determine commonalities between
offenders. With technology we can now compare brain scans to see if there is something to make
an individual more predisposed to commit crime. I believe there are both genetic and
environmental factors that lead to this.
Rehabilitation support is crucial while offenders are incarcerated and then reintegrated into
society. A lack of support can lead to higher chances of recidivism. Baloch and Jennings (2018)
report that most offenders do not receive support once they are reintegrated into society.
Depending on if they participated in a rehabilitation program while incarcerated, offenders who
committed a crime based on environmental factors, it may be easier for them to not reoffend. But
for those who have mental health issues and are potentially more predisposed to commit crime,
they can have an even more difficult time resisting reoffending. If we wish to prevent crime, we
should delegate resources so that offenders can have more support after they have served their
sentence.
Your statement about how we are not the masters of our own fate reminds of a positivist school
of thinking. The view of the positivist school of criminology is that criminal behavior is a
product of biological, psychological, and social forces that are beyond our control (Master et al,
2021). This view also believes in treatment and not punishment, but I believe a combination of
the two are what would be most effective.
References
Baloch, N. A., & Jennings, W. G. (2018). Offender vocational rehabilitation services and
postrelease employment: A case for inmates with disabilities. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 57(6), 402-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2018.1510865
Masters, R., Way, L., Gerstenfeld, P., Muscat, B., Hooper, M., Dussich, J., & Skrapec, C. (2021). CJ:
Realities and challenges (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
REPLY 2
-Study on why some people, despite a negative environment growing up, still grow up to
be better people
-Result of genetic disposition or simply having a positive force in the
evnironement
-Book that says people wont commit crimes if they think punishment is worse than the
reward
-Bentham proposed that people act in a way that brings them the greatest pleasure
and least pain (masters)
-mens rea - perpetrators state of mind at the time of the crime
-Different crimes represent different levels of mens rea - or criminal intent
-Law assumes that more serious punishment is with crimes with intent versesu
when it was an accident or reckless (masters)
-Should punish but should also give them the opportunity to be rehabilitated if they were
never given the chance growing up
Frederick,
Considering Tarde’s “Laws of Imitation”, I wonder how some children can grow up in a negative
environment and yet grow up to want to do the opposite instead of imitating their “superiors”
(Linebach & Kovacsiss, 2016). For example, a child that grows up witnessing domestic violence
can either grow up and imitate that behavior or instead have motivation to do the opposite and
have a healthy relationship. It could be that there was a positive person in their environment,
perhaps the victim of the abuse that the child loves, that causes this motivation. Or, if they do
imitate this behavior is it because they are more genetically predispositioned to commit crime. I
find it fascinating how certain biological and environmental factors can result in different
outcomes of whether people commit crimes or not.
I agree with what you said about punishment deterring criminals. Jeremy Bentham, a
philosopher, developed an idea called hedonistic calculus. This idea states that people will act in
a way that brings them the greatest pleasure and least pain and will not carry out a crime where
the punishment is not worth the potential reward (Masters et al., 2021). Because of how difficult
it is to prevent crime, I think there should be a large focus on how to prevent reoffending. We
should seek justice through punishment but also forgive in the form of providing opportunities
for rehabilitation. Many offenders commit crimes based on need and not because they are evil.
By giving them opportunities they may not have had growing up, we can reintegrate them back
into society as a better person and lessen the chance of recidivism.
References
Linebach, J., & Kovacsiss, L. (2016). An Introduction to Crime. In Psychology in the justice system.
Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.
Masters, R., Way, L., Gerstenfeld, P., Muscat, B., Hooper, M., Dussich, J., & Skrapec, C. (2021). CJ:
Realities and challenges (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
