The concept ‘born to be a criminal’ could be argued from a psychodynamic perspective also. Freud (1856-1939) argued that childhood experiences greatly influence adult behaviour. Since all behaviour is goal determined, the immediate goal of the ego defence mechanisms is to avoid and/ or reduce anxiety, resulting from this distress. For example, if an individual has not successfully resolved conflicts in childhood, through the – largely unconscious – early internalisation of childhood experiences, this will lead to trauma or distress. Experiencing this, the individual becomes dissociated through the depression of their emotional feelings, leading to alienation from wider society.
As individuals are essentially anti-social beings, biologically endowed with egocentric desires and destructive impulses, this facilitates conflict with the demands of society. In order to function within a social environment these impulses must be controlled or channelled by the individual. Therefore, the immediate desire of the id must be suppressed by the emergence of the ego, guided by the reality principle. The development of the reality principle should ensure that immediate gratification is delayed. The ego is then subjected to the constraints of the superego which essentially represents the norms and values of society. If the impulses of the id become conscious thought or behaviour the superego should impose feelings of guilt on the individual. However, inadequate superego formation may correlate with deficiencies in ego control and a failure to delay gratification, which may lead to criminal behaviour. This perspective, however, is similar to the argument for phrenology and suggests that due to genetic determinism, the individual has no free-will. However, the idea that criminality may be wholly related to genetic factors and physical characteristics has been pursued until quite recently. There are three main methods used by researchers attempting to ascertain the influences of genetic endowment on criminal behaviour; family, twin and adoption studies.
The underlying theory for Family studies is that since family members share genes to a large extent, criminal behaviour should be evident from generation to generation. Osborn & West (1979) found that 40% of sons of criminal fathers were criminal, compared to only 13% who had non-criminal fathers. This is consistent with most family studies, but the evidence is insufficient to ‘prove’ the heritability of criminal behaviour. Family studies have numerous methodological problems; for instance, it is impossible to separate genetic and environmental contributions to behaviour (Raine 1993). Most researches tend to investigate twin and adoption studies, when seeking a biological answer for criminality.
Twin studies seek explanations in the belief that, as monozygotic (MZ) twins share an identical genetic make up (compared with 50% in dizygotic (DZ) twins); genetics are the cause of criminality because they share the same environment. Therefore they will be similar in criminal behaviour compared to DZ twins. Lange (1931) studied criminal behaviour finding a mean behavioural similarity of 75% in MZ twins to 24% in DZ twins. However the sample sizes were small and similarity was determined by appearance alone, and therefore may not be accurate. Research in later years overcomes this problem by using DNA and other genetic techniques to identify MZ and DZ twins. Furthermore, twins are not a common phenomena and are not, therefore, representative of the population as a whole. It could also be argued that whilst twin studies show high heritability for criminology, they mention nothing about the wide variety of parenting styles and the influence of education.
Adoption studies suggest if adopted children are more similar to biological parents than adopted parents in terms of criminal behaviour, this provides strong evidence for genetic endowment. Alternately, if adopted children are more similar to adopted parents, this provides a strong case for environmental influences. Studies have shown that criminal biological parents lead to a high frequency of criminal offspring (more so when both parents are criminals). Bohman, Clongier, Sigvardsson & Knornig (1982) investigated the relationship between environment and genetic factors using cross fostering analysis of petty crime. The result showed, when both factors were present criminality was 40% compared to 12% for genetic factors alone and 6.7% for environmental alone. It could be argued therefore, the interaction of environment and genes accounts for the higher numbers of criminal behaviour. In adoption studies, factors such as socioeconomic status of the adoptive home, time spent by the individual in foster care, criminality in adoptive home and knowledge of the biological parents must all be taken into consideration (Cadoret 1978).
Whilst contemporary theory has moved away from the notion of a single ‘criminal gene’ towards polygenetic considerations, the 1950’s and 1960s saw the emergence of an explanation for violet crime in terms of an individual, identifiable genetic abnormality – the XYY chromosome. The association between the XYY syndrome and crime came from studies that suggested that XYY males had a disproportionate inclination to violent offences. Owen (1972) reviewed the evidence and suggested otherwise, describing a number of shortcomings with the research: including difficulties with the identification of the extra Y chromosome; the fact that the rate of XYY males in criminal populations is not radically different from non-criminal populations; poorly controlled measures of aggression and violence; and that sexual rather than violent offences appear to be more frequent with XYY males. However, another review by Jarvik et al. (1973) favoured the view that XYY males are over-represented in criminal populations compared to non-criminal populations. A study by Witkin et el. (1976) involved testing over 4000 men for the presence of the extra Y chromosome. Only twelve cases were identified: whilst these twelve men were more likely to involved in crime than might be predicted on the basis of chance alone, this was not found to be violent crime. The data provided strong support for the relationship between criminal behaviour and the extra Y chromosome. However, the link specifically with violent crime remains unsubstantiated Furthermore, there are individuals with XYY syndrome that are not criminals, and the vast majority of criminals do not have any chromosomal abnormalities at all. Other theories regarding criminality focus more on the social influences of behaviour.
It could be argued that a major determinant of violent or aggressive behaviour is social learning (Bandura, 1974; 1977; 1989). Social learning theory argues individuals learn through modelling, that is, copying the behaviour of others. However, how or what an individual learns varies according socio-cultural background, as their models will differ in each context (Sternberg, 1995). Oatley (1993, in Sternberg, 1995) posits that individualistic cultures will experience more criminal behaviour than collective cultures, perhaps due to the informal social controls of these cultures. Sternberg (1995) further argues that given social learning is an important factor with regards to criminality and violent behaviour, careful attention should be paid to the kind of models individuals present to each other. Another form of social learning can be explained through the theory differential association (Sutherland, 1939; 1947, Sutherland & Cressey, 1970; 1974).
Although differential association theory is frequently defined as a sociological theory, differential association theory has clear links with social learning theory. Differential association theory not only describes the necessary social conditions to produce crime, but also attempts to explain the processes by which the individual becomes criminal. Thus, ‘crime’ is seen as political, defined by those with the power to do so: however, while some people behave in accordance with these definitions, others act outside them. Differential association theory suggests that some individuals are ‘criminal’ in their preferred ‘definitions’ of acceptable behaviour that are seen as deviant by the lawmakers. Sutherland suggests there are various ways in which an individual acquires their favourable definitions of crime.
Differential association theory is an attempt to explain crime in terms of social learning and proposes that through contact with other people who hold favourable definitions towards crime, similar definitions are learned. It is important to note that the theory does not propose that the learning has to occur through association with criminals, but rather with people who hold definitions favourable to crime. For example, Parents who tell their children it is wrong to steal might, however, show examples of dishonesty such as not informing a shop assistant if they receive too much change in error. Furthermore, varying definitions can co-exist: an individual might argue that it is perfectly reasonable to falsify a tax return, but would define burglary as a crime.
Differential association theory argues that all behaviour is learned and that learning is through association with other individuals, within close social groups. Furthermore, differential association theory posits that learning includes techniques for executing particular crimes and the motivations and attitudes that are conducive to criminal behaviour. These attitudes and so on are learned from the individuals’ perception of the law (either favourable or unfavourable). An individual will display criminal behaviour if their definitions of law violation are more favourable than their definitions for non-violation. The learning experiences – differential association – will vary in frequency, intensity and importance according to the individual. It can also be argued, that the process for learning criminal behaviour is no different to any other kind of learning.
Despite various attempts at empirical validation there are problems with the theory in its original form. These problems include difficulties with the term ‘definition’, and a lack of detail as to why, given similar conditions, some individuals adopt criminal definitions while others do not. Sutherland and Cressey (1974) respond to the criticisms in two ways: the first is to dispel the misconception that criminal behaviour is only learned through association with criminals; the second is to point out that inadequacies within the theory, such as the role of individual differences, define areas for further research rather than refuting it. Indeed, in the time since the formulation of differential association theory great advances have been made in the study of social learning.
Theories of crime will be determined, to a greater or lesser degree, by the discipline of the theorist concerned. Thus psychologists draw upon psychological concepts to explain and understand crime, economists upon economic concepts, sociologists upon sociological concepts, and so on. However, this is not to say that all psychologists will agree in their explanations: the concepts a theorist adopts as important will be determined by their particular theoretical stance within their own discipline. Therefore, within the discipline of psychology there are theories of crime which emphasize biological determinism and draw on concepts such as behavioural genetics and psychodynamic theory. Other theories stress the importance of social and environmental influences on the individual: the effects of parenting styles and peer pressure. In some respects the explanations may share common elements; in other instances they stand diametrically opposed.
In conclusion, when one is seeking to explain the extent to which biology determines criminality it is clear that this explanation can not be applied in isolation. Humans are social as well as biological beings and any attempt to explain human behaviour (no matter what behaviour is displayed) must surely take into account the effects of social and environmental influences on the individual. There is no evidence to suggest genetic factors alone account for individual differences. Perhaps future research should be directed towards determining to what extent heritability directly or indirectly affects an individual’s predisposition to crime.
Word count: 2388
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1974) “Behaviour theory and the models of man”. American Psychologist, 29: 859-869
Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall
Bandura, A. (1989) “Human agency in social cognitive theory”. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184
Blackburn, R. (1993) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Chichester: Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Bohman, M., Cloninger, C.R., Sigvardsson, S., & Von Knorring, A. (1982) “Predisposition to petty crime in Swedish adoptees: 1. Genetic and environmental heterogeneity”. Archives of General Psychiatry, 39: 1233-1241
Cadoret, R.J. (1978) “Psychopathology in adopted-away offspring of biologic parents with anti-social behaviour”. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35:176-184
Gabrielli, W.F.,& Mednick, S.A. (1980) “Sinistrality and delinqueny”. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89: 645-661
Jarvick, L.F., Klodin, V., & Matsuyama, S.S. (1973) “Human aggression and the extra Y chromosome: fact or fantasy?” American Psychologist, 28: 674-682
Jewkes, Y., & Letherby, G. (2000) Criminology: a reader. London:Sage
Lange, J.S. (1931) Crime as Destiny. London: Allen & Unwin
Owen, D.R. (1972) “The XYY male: A review”. Psychological Bulletin, 16: 74-89
Osbourn, S.G., & West, D.J. (1979) “Conviction records of fathers and sons compared”. British Journal of Criminology, 19:120-33
Paicheler, G. (1988) Psychology of Social Influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Raine, J.W. (1993) Managing Criminal Justice. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf
Sternberg, R.J. (1995) In Search of the Human Mind. Fort Worth: Brace College Publishers
Sutherland, E.H. (1939) The Professional Thief (Phoenix Books) Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Sutherland, E.H., & Cressey, D.R. (1970) Criminology (eighth edition) Philadelphia: J.B. Lippencott Company
Witkin, H.A., Mednick, S.A., Schulsinger, F., Bakkestrom, E., Christiansen, K.O., Goodenough, D., Hirshhorn, K., Lundsteen, C., Owen, D.R., Philip, J., Rubin, D.B., & Stocking, M.M. (1976) “Criminality in XYY and XXY men” Science, 193; 547-555
Young, J. (1971a) “The role of the police of amplifiers of deviance, negotiators of reality and translations of fantasy”. In Cohen, S. (Ed) Images of Deviance. Harmonsworth: Penguin
Young, J. The Drug takers. London: Paladin