雅思阅读第076套P2-Physiology and Criminality

Physiology and Criminality

Prior to the 19th century, criminality was considered more of a moral or philosophical issue. Only with the advent of Italian anthropologist Cesare Lombroso did the subject of criminality take a more scientific turn. With the publication of his theories of criminal behaviour, Lombroso advanced the idea that criminal behaviour was attributable to physiological disposition rather than to any existential reasons.

In his ‘atavistic form’ theory published in 1876, Lombroso claimed that criminality was heritable. He proposed that a distinct biological class of people were prone to criminality. Such people, he claimed, exhibited ‘atavistic’ or primitive features and were ‘throwbacks’, bearing physical resemblances to Man’s predecessors, the Neanderthals. Characterised by a strong, well-defined jaw and heavy brow, they certainly had little to recommend them in the beauty stakes. With such features, coupled with a tendency towards criminal behaviour, Lombroso’s atavistic type was certainly not cut out for social success. Just for good measure, Lombroso also included other distinguishing features to identify criminals, such as bloodshot eyes and curly hair for murderers and thick lips and protruding ears for sex offenders. It has to be wondered, given the unusual appearance with which they were credited, how such individuals would have got close enough to their victims to begin with and, more to the point, how any such criminals hoped to get away with their crime, seeing as they were so readily identifiable.

In hindsight, Lombroso’s hypothesis seems ludicrous and deeply flawed. One major failing in Lombroso’s theory of an atavistic type is that no proper controls were used in studies designed to support his hypo-thesis. All individuals were confined to a criminal population, no comparison being made at the time with non-criminal control groups. Secondly, the concept of what constitutes a crime is in itself a social construct and can vary cross-culturally and over time. Therefore, the argument that criminal behaviour is inherited is hard to sustain. Finally, in the light of modern genetic research, complex behaviours are not considered to be controlled by single genes, thereby completely ruling out any possibility of inherited criminality.

Surprisingly, given his strong conviction of a biological disposition towards criminality, Lombroso later modified his views to admit environmental influences in determining criminal behaviour. Such views now form the basis of contemporary theories of criminality. In recognition of this fact, contemporary criminologists have bestowed on Lombroso the honorary title ‘the father of criminology’. Furthermore, despite scientific failings in his experimental approach, Lombroso is to be credited with shifting the study of criminal behaviour from a moral basis to an empirical one, thereby placing the study of criminology on a more scientific footing.

The argument for a biological basis to criminality resurfaced, however, nearly a century later with Sheldon’s theory of somatotypes. In 1949, Sheldon advanced the theory that individuals fell within three broad physical types: the ectomorph, mesomorph and endomorph. The ectomorph was essentially thin, the mesomorph muscular and athletic, whilst the endomorph type was said to be fat and rather lethargic. Each physical type, Sheldon claimed, was associated with a distinct personality and temperament. Ectomorphs were characterised by a solitary and restrained nature, whilst mesomorphs were said to be adventurous and endomorphs relaxed and pleasure-loving. Unfortunately for the mesomorphs, Sheldon also claimed that those corresponding to this physical type had criminal tendencies. By linking inherited physical types with personality, Sheldon thereby was hypothesising a hereditary aspect to criminal behaviour. Sheldon’s studies of mesomorphic college students did to some extent confirm his theory as did a later study conducted by Putwain and Sammons as recently as 2002. In partial support of Sheldon’s theory, an increased level of testosterone associated with a mesomorphic build could explain such a biological disposition towards criminality associated with a particular body type. However, social prejudices and self-fulfilling prophecies could also be at play in the above average correlation between mesomorphic types and criminal behaviour in society.

Following on from Sheldon’s hypothesis, a further argument for a biological disposition to criminality was proposed in the 1960s. This time, hereditary tendencies were linked to genetic defect or chromosomal abnormality. Variations of the normal ‘XY’ genetic component or genotype of males were hypothesised to determine criminal behaviour from homicide to violent crime. The theory was based on the unproven assumption that possession of an extra ‘X’ chromosome ‘feminises’ a man and so conversely having an extra male ‘Y’ chromosome should make a man more masculine and aggressive. However, this somewhat weak hypothesis was severely undermined by the study of Epps in 1995. Epps demonstrated that possessing an extra ‘Y’ chromosome, as in the ‘XYY’ genotype, made an individual no more likely to commit violent crime than anyone else. The further finding that testosterone levels amongst ‘XYY’ men are no different from ‘XY’ men and that the former are no more aggressive than the latter sounded the final death knell for the hypothesis of a criminal type determined by genotype alone.

At least those who place trust in rehabilitation programmes to reform criminal types can now breathe a sigh of relief. It would seem that the rather pessimistic prognosis for individuals born with a certain physique or genotype no longer holds credence in scientific circles. If biological predisposition does play a role in criminality, it seems to be at least tempered by environmental and social factors to a large extent.

SECTION 2: QUESTIONS 14-26