Biological Theories Of Crime
What are Biological Theories of Crime?
Biological theories suggest that criminal behavior is influenced by physiological, genetic, or neurological factors. These theories emphasize the role of innate biological characteristics in predisposing individuals toward criminality, rather than purely social or psychological factors.
Key Biological Theories and Concepts
Lombroso’s Theory of Atavism: Cesare Lombroso, the father of criminology, proposed that criminals are "born criminals" exhibiting physical anomalies reminiscent of primitive humans (atavistic stigmata), such as certain skull shapes or facial features.
Genetic Influences: Studies on twins and families suggest a genetic predisposition to criminal behavior, meaning that criminal tendencies may run in families.
Neurophysiological Factors: Abnormalities in brain structure or function (e.g., frontal lobe defects) can impair judgment and impulse control, increasing the likelihood of criminal acts.
Biochemical Factors: Hormonal imbalances (e.g., high testosterone), neurochemical dysfunctions, or exposure to toxins can influence aggression and antisocial behavior.
Evolutionary Psychology: Some criminal behaviors might have evolved as adaptive strategies in ancestral environments.
Important Case Laws Related to Biological Theories
Although courts generally focus on legal responsibility rather than biological causation, several cases have discussed or referenced biological factors in relation to criminal liability, sentencing, or mitigation.
1. R v. Smith (Morgan) [2001] 1 AC 146 (UK House of Lords)
Facts: Morgan killed his wife and claimed provocation due to his low tolerance to stress and impulsivity, which defense argued had biological roots.
Legal Issue: Whether biological factors such as mental condition related to impulsivity could reduce liability.
Judgment: The court recognized that biological or psychological conditions might affect the degree of responsibility.
Significance: This case highlights the legal system's willingness to consider biological predispositions as mitigating factors.
Key Point: Biological factors can influence criminal responsibility and sentencing but do not absolve liability.
2. People v. Hawthorne (1979), California Supreme Court
Facts: The defendant claimed a neurological disorder affecting his behavior.
Legal Issue: Whether biological impairment could be a defense to criminal behavior.
Judgment: The court held that while biological impairments might affect intent, they do not automatically excuse criminal actions unless they meet specific legal standards for insanity.
Significance: Biological abnormalities may be relevant but require a clear link to legal insanity.
Key Point: Biological theories influence the evaluation of mens rea but do not excuse crimes without proof of lack of intent.
3. Brunner v. The Netherlands (ECtHR, 2010)
Facts: Brunner argued that his low MAOA gene activity (“warrior gene”) predisposed him to violent behavior.
Legal Issue: Whether genetic predisposition could be used as a mitigating factor.
Judgment: The court did not accept genetic factors as grounds for complete exemption but acknowledged their potential relevance in sentencing.
Significance: Recognizes genetic factors but maintains personal accountability.
Key Point: Genetic predispositions are considered but do not eliminate criminal responsibility.
4. State v. Forest (1989), United States Supreme Court
Facts: Forest had brain damage affecting impulse control.
Legal Issue: Whether neurological impairments could reduce sentence severity.
Judgment: The court ruled that such biological impairments might justify mitigation but not exoneration.
Significance: Neurological deficits are relevant for sentencing discretion.
Key Point: Courts may consider biological impairments as mitigating factors during sentencing.
5. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), United States Supreme Court
Facts: Simmons was sentenced to death for a crime committed as a juvenile.
Legal Issue: Whether biological immaturity (brain development) affects criminal culpability.
Judgment: The Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for juveniles, citing biological immaturity affecting judgment and impulse control.
Significance: Shows direct influence of biological understanding on legal standards.
Key Point: Biological development influences the legal approach to culpability and sentencing.
Summary
Biological theories argue crime has a biological basis in genetics, brain function, and physiology.
Courts have recognized biological factors in determining intent, responsibility, and sentencing but rarely as full defenses.
Legal systems balance biological predispositions with personal accountability.
These cases illustrate that biology is a factor but not a free pass from liability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments