Lombroso (1876) claimed that criminals constituted a biologically distinct class of people united

by primitive characteristics such as strong jaws, low brows and lower than average intelligence.
He went as far as to say that different subtypes of criminal could be identified through such
characteristics, for example murderers were said to have bloodshot eyes, strong jaws and curly
hair whereas sex offenders tended to have thick lips and projecting ears. Although Lombroso is
regarded by many researchers as ‘the father of criminology’ for his insistence on the scientific
method, his theory of criminal types is fundamentally flawed for several reasons, including the
lack of a control group to establish whether the characteristics he identified as ‘criminal’ occurred
in the non-criminal population.

Another theory of criminality which stresses the importance of physical appearance was put
forward by Sheldon (1949) who tried to link criminal behaviour to bodily build or somatotype.
According to Sheldon, there are three basic body types: endomorphs (fat), ectomorphs (thin) and
mesomorphs (muscular). He claimed that each body type was linked to a certain temperament
and set of personality traits. Sheldon reasoned that the energetic and adventurous temperament
of mesomorphs might lead to them becoming active in criminal activity. Sheldon gained positive
results from his research, however his methods were questioned and when the study was
repeated, the association between mesomorphy and delinquency was no longer present.

Psychoanalytical theories of crime stem from the Freudian idea of a three-part personality. At the
root of the psyche is the id, which generates self-serving and pleasure-seeking impulses,
redirected by the ego which is planted in reality, which in turn is guided by the superego, the
moral part of the psyche. A well-adjusted person is able to satisfy the id in a way that is morally
acceptable to the superego. It follows that someone with a dysfunctional superego caused by
issues with their family during childhood will exhibit antisocial behaviour. Blackburn (1993) said
that criminal behaviour could be the result of a superego that is over-harsh, weak or deviant. It is
easy to dismiss psychoanalytical theory because they are ‘unscientific’, and while psychoanalytic
research has provided useful pointers to later theorists of crime, it is rarely used on its own to
explain criminal behaviour.

Social learning theory is chiefly associated with the work of Albert Bandura, and is an alternative
approach to the acquisition of criminal behaviour. Bandura suggests that all types of behaviour
are learned by observing others. If this behaviour is reinforced, the observer is more likely to
imitate them, whereas punishment is a deterrent. This applies to criminal behaviour as it does
any other. SLT has contributed to the understanding of criminal behaviour through Bandura’s
(1963) study which demonstrated that young children could acquire aggressive behaviours
through the observation of an adult model. Though SLT has been criticised for largely being
based in laboratory studies and underplaying the role of cognitive function and decision making,
it outlines the uniqueness of the individual and that people may commit the same crime for
different reasons.

Labelling theory is based on the idea that society’s reaction to deviance has future
consequences for the future behaviour of the deviant person. Society defines certain acts as
criminal, and a person who commits such acts is labelled as a criminal. Because the person is
then treated by society as such, they may come to adopt the label as part of their self-image and
this affects their future behaviour. Studies such as Ageston and Elliot (1974) support this view,
however, the theory does not explain the initial criminal act performed by the individual.