1

There are many theories that have been developed which attempt to explain the causes of

criminal behaviour, including explanations of crime which focus on the individual – his or

her thought process, biological factors, and psychological factors; and explanations of crime

which focus on factors external to the individual – the surrounding environment, others who

influence the individual, and society as a whole. These two areas of criminology are often

seen to be in direct conflict with each other.

Nowadays most criminologists agree that it isn’t an either-or situation – internal factors and

social factors both play a part in determining one’s behaviour. This essay takes the same view

and argues that both sides of criminology have their strengths and weaknesses in explaining

crime, and the notion that only internal or external factors can be the cause for an individual

being criminal is outdated.

To demonstrate that neither explanations of crime are more convincing than the other, this

essay will examine both biological theories and ecological theories and compare them against

each other. In doing so, each theory and their origins will be explained, the weaknesses of

each theory will be explored, and the crimes that each theory can explain will be stated.

Biological theories are interested in the inherited genetics of the individual to determine their

predisposition to antisocial behaviour (Hirschi & Gottfredson 1990, p. 414). Cesare

Lombroso, dubbed “the father of modern criminology”, popularised biological positivism

during the nineteenth century. His general theory proposed that ‘the criminal was born, not

made’ – he believed that atavistic criminals (people who are biologically inferior) were a

reversion of the human specimen, having physical features similar to that apes and early man

– such a person could be identified by examining their appearance and noting any physical

abnormalities or ‘stigmata’ (White, Haines & Asquith 2012, p. 49).

 2

Early biological theories focused on the constitution (physical structure) of the individual.

These theories include phrenology, which proposes that the shape and size of the skull

defines your behaviour; Lombroso’s idea of the “born criminal”; and William Sheldon’s

somatotype theory, which proposes that there are three types of body builds that are

associated with human temperament – endomorphic (fat), mesomorphic (muscular) and

ectomorphic (slim) – and that studies have shown that the majority of criminals are

mesomorphs (Nassi & Abramowitz 1976, pp. 592-595).

Future biological theories took the focus away from the physical appearance of the individual

and instead took a more sophisticated approach to studying the correlation between genetics

and criminal behaviour. These theories include twin studies that compared identical and

fraternal twins – these studies found that concordance (association of crime with both twins)

in identical twins was double that of fraternal twins (Nassi and Abramowitz 1976, p. 596);

and XYY chromosome theory, which postulates there is a correlation between criminality

and genetic make-up, and that men who have an XYY chromosomal complement are more

predisposed to criminal behaviour (White, Haines & Asquith 2012, p. 51).

Contemporary biological theories take a less deterministic view than their predecessors,

acknowledging that biological factors influence behaviour instead of determining it, and

external factors also influence behaviour (White, Haines & Asquith 2012, p. 53). The most

notable contemporary example, biosocial explanations, incorporates genetic,

neuropsychological and environmental theories in its research of crime and antisocial

behaviour (Wright & Boisvert 2009, p. 1228).

Early biological theories have been heavily scrutinized for their primitive approach to

studying crime. According to Fishbein, ‘biological criminology was... discredited because its

findings were largely unscientific, simplistic, and unicausal’ (1990, pp. 27-28). Lombroso’s
 3

studies were easily rejected for numerous reasons, including inadequate sample sizes, no data

from non-criminal individuals, lack of a scientific method of data analysis, and contradictory

conclusions (Nassi & Abramowitz 1976, p. 593).

These theories were also criticised for the solutions, or lack thereof, they offered for crime

prevention. Biological theories are seen to be pessimistic towards the prevention of crime, as

crime is explained to be caused by inherent traits that cannot be changed. The notion that

those who have these inherent traits are and will always be criminal led to some responses to

crime which are considered abhorrent in today’s society. The belief of eugenics was espoused

by Hooton, whose recommendations for crime prevention after his conclusion that criminal

behaviour is a direct result of inherited biological inferiority is as follows:

It follows that the elimination of crime can be effected only by the extirpation of the

physically, mentally, and morally unfit or by their complete segregation in a socially

asceptive environment. (Halleck 1971 cited in Nassi and Abramowitz 1976, p. 593)

Biological theories were also instrumental in the justification of the use of eugenics by the

Nazis (Duster 2003 cited in White, Haines & Asquith 2012, p. 51).

The focus of internal factors that are out of the individual’s control is another facet of

biological theories that warrants criticism. The study of the individual’s inherited genetics

takes the blame away from the individual as well as society. Nassi and Abramowitz believe:

...defenders of the established order find protection in the biomedical approach, which

emphasizes individual deficiencies and thus diverts attention away from the underlying

deficiencies in the social, economic, and political institutions. (1976, p. 592)

What they are alluding to is the notion that politicians and others of influence can promote

the study of biological theories (e.g. through funding of said research) to keep the social

norms they want in place. This has two negative effects. Firstly, funding and focus on social
 4

theories is reduced as a result of increased funding for biological research. Secondly, the

accountability of those in positions of power is reduced as the focus is on the individual’s

internal defects, taking the focus away from societal defects which these powers are tasked to

fix.

Despite the negativity associated with early biological theories, the notion that inherited

genetics plays a part in determining one’s behaviour cannot be ignored. Contemporary

biological theories have shown that there is a link between inherited genetics and criminality.

Individual differences that have strong genetic underpinnings (such as IQ, self-control, and

aggression) also have a strong influence over a person’s opportunities in life – these

individual differences have been found to be some of the most inheritable human

characteristics (Beaver et al. 2008b; Plomin & Rende 1991; Rhee & Waldman 2002 cited in

Wright and Boisvert 2009, p. 1236).

The crimes that biological theories are able to explain include violent crimes and crimes

associated with juvenile delinquency. The possibility that biological factors play a role in the

development of aggressive and violent behaviour is highlighted by research that shows

‘violent criminals have an early history of crime and aggression’ (Loeber & Dishion 1983;

Moffitt et al. 1989 cited in Fishbein 1990, p. 27). Biological theories also show a relationship

between crime and low intelligence (Nassi & Abramowitz 1976, p. 598), which can explain

crimes generally committed by juveniles who struggle in school and eventually drop out,

such as vandalism, underage drinking, hooning, theft et cetera.

Ecological theories, instead of focusing on the traits of the individual, focus on the traits of

places and groups that influence the behaviour of the individual– the ecological factors of

crime. These theories originated in the early twentieth century at the University of Chicago,

hence this branch of criminology commonly being referred to as ‘the Chicago School’.
 5

Robert Park, who eventually became the head of the Chicago sociology department, can be

seen to be the founder of the ecological study of crime when in his article ‘The City’ in 1915

he proposed that anthropological studies should be applied to the urban life and culture of

Chicago (Downes & Rock 2011, p. 52).

His colleague Ernest Burgess developed the zonal hypothesis, which proposed ‘that cities

naturally become organized into five concentric circular zones – the business district, the

zone in transition, working-class housing, middle-class housing, and suburbia (Quinn 1940,

p. 210). Alone this theory offers no explanation for criminal behaviour; Shaw and McKay’s

study of crime statistics found that there was ‘a massive concentration of pathological

behaviour in the zone in transition’, and their theory of social disorganisation developed from

these findings (Downes & Rock 2011, p. 59)

Social disorganisation refers to the absence of common values in a community and a

breakdown in community institutions that fail to solve the problems residents of the

community face (such as high rates of unemployment and high school dropouts). Shaw and

McKay found that the transition zone tended to have high rates of population turnover and

population heterogeneity (diversity), due to some of the migrants who resided in these low

rental areas leaving when becoming more prosperous, being replaced by new migrants of a

different ethnicity – these two factors ‘were assumed to increase the likelihood of social

disorganisation’, which in turn increases the likelihood of the children of these migrants

engaging in criminal behaviour (Bursik 1988, pp. 520-521).

Data and research help to confirm the idea that social disorganisation is linked to crime. In

the area of Seattle which had the highest rate of delinquency in 1934, half the children were

Italian, dilapidated business building and apartment houses dotted the main streets, and it was

home to the smallest percentage of home owners in the city. Half a century later this area of
 6

Seattle still remains the prime delinquency area, but this area is now home to the black

community of Seattle (Stark 1987, p. 893).

Results from a statistical analysis of data collected from two independent surveys of Great

Britain by Sampson and Groves also support the theory, finding that communities which

displayed the characteristics associated with social disorganisation (sparse friendship

networks, unsupervised teenage peer groups, and low organizational participation) ‘had

disproportionately high rates of crime and delinquency’ (1989, p. 774, p. 799).

Social disorganisation theory is not without its critiques. The statistics used to support the

theory can be questioned on a number of grounds. Firstly, there is an overreliance on official

crime statistics, which can be biased towards poorer neighbourhoods due to a greater

concentration of police in these neighbourhoods, leading to these neighbourhoods having

higher reported crime rates (Sampson & Groves 1989, p. 776).

Secondly, studies of social disorganisation rely on census data that is collected from

administratively defined geographic boundaries which act as proxies for neighbourhoods –

the community’s idea of what their neighbourhood is may vary to that of the administration

(Hart & Waller 2013, p. 16).

Finally, the questions asked in the surveys used in these studies can be scrutinized for not

being sufficiently empirical – Sampson and Groves acknowledge that the survey question

used as an indicator of local friendship networks is flawed:

...a respondent with only one friend could be viewed as having strong local ties if his or her

only friend lived in the community. On the other hand, those with an unusually large number

of friends could be defined as having weak local ties even if they had several friends in the

community. (1989, p. 795)

 7

Another weakness of ecological theories is that they focus on the environment the individual

lives in and not on the individual themselves. This takes blame away from the individual and

fails to explain the motivation behind the individual committing the criminal act. The

appropriateness of using ecological factors as a link to crime as a substitute to individual

factors was questioned, and concerns have been raised in the academic literature over the

notion that there is strong relationship between social disorganisation and crime (Hart &

Waller 2013, p. 17).

Social disorganisation theory can also be criticised for overlooking the fact that criminals can

be found in areas outside the transition zone, and also overlooking the role that business and

industry play in the emergence of social disorganisation, and therefore, delinquency

(Snodgrass 1976, pp. 9-10). Further criticism can be drawn from the fact that this theory was

developed in, and therefore for, the city of Chicago – it is difficult to apply this theory to

cities that have not developed the way Chicago has.

Ecological theories, like biological theories, are limited to the types of crimes they can

explain. Street crimes committed by juveniles are the focus of these types of theories, as the

social disorganisation found in the transition zone results in youths playing in the streets

without parental supervision – these youths will often engage in petty criminal activity such

as stealing from the local fruit stall and fighting other youths on the street for reputation

(Downes & Rock 2011, p. 65).

The response to criminal activity that results from these theories is justice reinvestment –

identifying disadvantaged communities where funds and services can be invested, such as

youth clubs, volunteering opportunities for young people, and social workers to monitor and

assist juveniles who enter the criminal justice system. It could be argued that this is unfair as

it disadvantages other neighbourhoods.

 8

The debate over whether individual explanations of crime are more convincing than social

explanations of crime is a difficult one and has been the focus of many academics over the

years. However, as can be seen by the discussion in this essay, both areas of criminology fail

to explain a range of crimes that are unrelated to violent and juvenile behaviour- such as

white-collar crimes and state crimes – and of the crimes they do attempt to explain, there are

flaws in the methodologies they use to study them. Crimes and criminals are complex; these

theories should be used as tools to help understand certain criminal behaviour, not as answers

to the causes of all crime.

 9

References

Bursik, RJ, JR, 1988, ‘Social disorganisation and theories of crime and delinquency:
problems and prospects’, Criminology, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 519-552, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-
9125.1988.tb00854.x

Downes, D & Rock, P 2011, Understanding Deviance: A Guide to the Sociology of Crime
and Rule-Breaking, 6th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Fishbein, DH 1990, ‘Biological perspectives in criminology’, Criminology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp.
27-72, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.tb01317.x

Hart, TC & Waller, J 2013, ‘Neighbourhood boundaries and structural determinants of social
disorganisation: examining the validity of commonly used measures’, Western Criminology
Review, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 16-33, (online Ebscohost).

Hirschi, T & Gottfredson, M 1990, ‘Substantive positivism and the idea of crime’,
Rationality and Society, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 412-428, doi: 10.1177/1043463190002004002

Nassi, AJ & Abramowitz, SI 1976, ‘From phrenology to psychosurgery and back again:
biological studies of criminality’, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 46, no. 4, pp.
591-607, doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1976.tb00958.x

Quinn, JA 1940, ‘The Burgess zonal hypothesis and its critics’, American Sociological
Review, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 210-218, viewed 22 April 2014,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083636

Sampson, RJ & Groves, WB 1989, ‘Community structure and crime: testing social-
disorganisation theory’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 774-802, doi:
10.1086/229068

Snodgrass, J 1976, ‘Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay: Chicago criminologists’, The
British Journal of Criminology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1-19, viewed 22 April 2014, (online
Google Scholar).

Stark, R 1987, ‘Deviant places: a theory of the ecology of crime’, Criminology, vol. 25, no. 4,
pp. 893-910, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00824.x

White, R, Haines, F & Asquith, N 2012, Crime and Criminology, 5th edn, Oxford University
Press, Melbourne

Wright, JP & Boisvert, D 2009, ‘What biosocial criminology offers criminology’, Criminal
Justice and Behaviour, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 1228-1240, doi: 10.1177/0093854809343140