Criminology vs. Criminal Justice
The last section addressed the work of the Classical Theorists, who had and continue to have a major influence on the Criminal Justice system. But how, you might ask, is Criminal Justice different than Criminology?
Criminology, as a discipline, addresses the scientific process of conducting rational empirical investigation into matters that involve both crime and criminals. Criminal Justice address itself to the institutions that make up the justice system. We will, of course, move back and forth to address for reasons that there are many points of overlap.
For now, we turn our attention to the Positivist School, which informs the early formulations of scientific criminological testing and theorizing in the discipline of criminology. The emphasis on science in criminology began with the time period of the mid-1800’s and still continues today.
What is Positivism?
Positivism is a philosophical theory based on the idea that positive knowledge might be achieved through a process of investigation, whereby one comes to understand natural phenomena, including their properties and relations. Put another way, we might say that information derived from sense experience, interpreted through reason and logic, can inform the basis of all certain knowledge. Positivism holds that valid knowledge (certitude or truth) is found only in this a posteriori knowledge (knowledge learned from empirical investigation).
Verified data (positive facts) received from the senses are known as empirical evidence; thus, positivism is based on empiricism.
Positivism also holds that society, much like the natural physical world, operates according to general laws.
Positivism rejects intuitive knowledge (like the knowledge you acquire through your individual personal experiences); likewise, it rejects knowledge based on metaphysics and theology.
Although the positivist approach can be traced to different writers and thinkers throughout the history of western thought, the modern understanding of the term was formulated by the philosopher Auguste Comte in the early 19th century. Comte argued that, much as the physical world operates according to gravity and other absolute laws, so does society.
Skull on display in the Cesare Lombroso museum of pathological anatomy
Cesare Lombroso – The Father of Modern Criminology
Cesare Lombroso was one of the first people in history to use scientific methods to study crime. Recall now that most previous theorists were not scientists (i.e. Beccaria was a lawyer; Bentham was a philosopher). Lombroso, by way of contrast, was trained in medical science. In light of this, it was only natural that he approached his subject matter from a perspective that advocated the use of scientific methods of study. He is perhaps best known for his work Criminal Man in 1876. Lombroso’s theory of the born criminal dominated thinking about criminal behavior in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Lombroso’s fascination began in Italy in 1871 with a meeting between a criminal and a scientist. The criminal was a man named Giuseppe Villella, a notorious Calabrian thief and arsonist. The scientist was an army doctor called Cesare Lombroso, who had begun his career working in lunatic asylums and had then become interested in crime and criminals while studying Italian soldiers. Now he was trying to pinpoint the differences between lunatics, criminals and normal individuals by examining inmates in Italian prisons (Mason).
Lombroso found Villella interesting, given his extraordinary agility and cynicism as well as his tendency to boast of his escapades and abilities. After Villella’s death, Lombroso conducted a post-mortem and discovered that his subject had an indentation at the back of his skull, which resembled that found in apes. Lombroso concluded from this evidence, as well as that from other criminals he had studied, that some were born with a propensity to offend and were also savage throwbacks to early man. This discovery was the beginning of Lombroso’s work as a criminal anthropologist (Mason).
Delinquent skulls pictured in Criminal Man (1876)
Lombroso wrote: “At the sight of that skull, I seemed to see all of a sudden, lighted up as a vast plain under a flaming sky, the problem of the nature of the criminal – an atavistic being who reproduces in his person the ferocious instincts of primitive humanity and the inferior animals (Mason).
“Thus were explained anatomically the enormous jaws, high cheekbones, prominent superciliary arches, solitary lines in the palms, extreme size of the orbits, handle-shaped or sessile ears found in criminals, savages and apes, insensibility to pain, extremely acute sight, tattooing, excessive idleness, love of orgies and the irresistible craving for evil for its own sake, the desire not only to extinguish life in the victim, but to mutilate the corpse, tear its flesh, and drink its blood” (Mason).
Illustrations of the body parts of criminals, Criminal Man (1876)
Lombroso’s Stigmata
While having Christian origins, Lombroso used the term stigmata to refer to physical signs of the state of atavism (a morally and biologically inferior person). More to the point, he used the term “atavistic stigmata” to refer to what he determined were “criminal” characteristics, which he observed in his study of physiognomy and other characteristics that he identified while studying the corpses of known violent criminals [historically, “stigmata” are the bodily marks, sores, or sensations of pain in locations that correspond to the crucifixion wounds of Jesus].
Essentially, Lombroso believed that criminality was inherited and that criminals could be identified by physical defects that confirmed them as being atavistic or savage. As such, the stigmata of criminality were things like the shape of ears, length of fingers, large jaws, sloping foreheads, large chins, large noses and flattened noses. A thief, for example, could be identified by his expressive face, manual dexterity, and small, wandering eyes. Habitual murderers meanwhile had cold, glassy stares, bloodshot eyes and big hawk-like noses, and rapists had ‘jug ears’. These were the features that identified the “born criminal.”
Lombroso, of course, took a number of his ideas from Charles Darwin’s original ideas. People who looked “less evolved” were in his view not demonstrating the higher brain functions of homo sapiens. This led him to speculate that they were perhaps more likely to act on criminal impulses that cultural training and “civilization” helps others to forgo.
It should be noted that Lombroso did not confine his views to male criminals – he co-wrote his first book to examine the causes of female crime, and concluded, among other things, that female criminals were far more ruthless than male; tended to be lustful and immodest; were shorter and more wrinkled; and had darker hair and smaller skulls than ‘normal’ women. They did, however, suffer from less baldness, said Lombroso. Women who committed crimes of passion had prominent lower jaws and were more wicked than their male counterparts, he concluded (Mason).
Unfortunately for Lombroso, subsequent research showed that the “stigmata” he identified in criminals was present in noncriminals almost equal proportion to the criminal population. As a result, he was forced to revise his theory. His revisionary hypothesis stated that “in almost all cases” it was a biological predisposition to commit crime as evidenced by stigmata (not the environment) that led to the commission of crime.
Phrenology
Why are people so fascinated by the features of criminals? What can we learn from making models of people’s heads? During the early and mid 19th century, people were taken with the”science” of phrenology – a pseudoscience that focused primarily on human skull measurements. According to this understanding, the brain was the organ of the mind; one that could be divided into functional modules.
So it was believed that by examining the shape and unevenness of a head or skull, one could discover the development of the particular cerebral “organs” responsible for different intellectual aptitudes and character traits. For example, a prominent protuberance in the forehead at the position attributed to the organ of Benevolence was meant to indicate that the individual had a “well developed” organ of Benevolence and would, therefore, be expected to exhibit benevolent behavior.
Gall’s and the phrenologists’ assumption that character, thoughts, and emotions are located in specific parts of the brain was, at the time, considered an important historical advance toward neuropsychology. The basic tenets of Gall’s system were:
1. The brain is the organ of the mind.
2. The mind is composed of multiple distinct, innate faculties.
3. Because they are distinct, each faculty must have a separate seat or “organ” in the brain.
4. The size of an organ, other things being equal, is a measure of its power.
5. The shape of the brain is determined by the development of the various organs.
6. As the skull takes its shape from the brain, the surface of the skull can be read as an accurate index of psychological aptitudes and tendencies.
While compelling, phrenology extrapolated well beyond any knowledge that could be empirically determined. Consequently, while it put on a good show, phrenology was not a true science.
However, like so many popular sciences, Gall and his colleagues sought only confirmations for their hypotheses and did not apply the same standard to contradictory evidence. Any evidence or anecdote which seemed to confirm the science was readily and vociferously accepted as “proof” of the “truth” of phrenology. At the same time, contradictory findings, such as a not very benevolent and disagreeable person having a well-developed organ of Benevolence were always explained away.
Australian Phrenology – Death Masks
The death masks tell us a lot about what people were thinking about criminals in the 19th century. It was not controversial to believe that there was a definitive criminal “type” and/or that there was a distinctive criminal class. For more on this, check out the short video clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MO5429RjvM
Contemporary Phrenology – Face Mapping
Modern Biological Theories of Criminality
What is the relationship between criminality and biology? As we have seen here, Nineteenth-century practitioners of medical science, phrenologists among them, insisted that criminality was innate, inherent in the offender’s brain matter. While they were eventually repudiated as pseudo-scientists, today the pendulum has swung back.
Today we find again there are criminologists and biologists who have begun to speak of a tantalizing but disturbing possibility: that criminality may be inherited as a set of genetic deficits that place one at risk to commit theft, violence, or acts of sexual deviance. But what do these new theories really assert? Are they as dangerous as their forerunners, which the Nazis and other eugenicists used to sterilize, incarcerate, and even execute thousands of supposed “born” criminals? How can we prepare for a future in which leaders may propose crime-control programs based on biology?
What Can Crime Museums Teach Us About Crime?
The crime museum, as we know it today, locates its birth in the 19th century. Museums like the Cesare Lombroso Museum of Criminal Anthropology at the University of Turin can tell us a lot about the development of the discipline of criminology, criminological theory, and criminal justice systems. While Lombroso, as we know, believed that criminals were born, the discipline of criminology has since evolved to understand that crime and criminals are produced by a combination of historical, social, and cultural social forces.
Although they are often popular with people who have a taste for the macabre – many of the exhibits that tend to reflect the dark side of human nature – museums like this one can continue to help shape our current thinking about crime and criminals. They are rich sources of forensic artifacts and, in some instance, offer dramatizations of high-profile crimes. The same holds true for police and prison museums (see my module on Pennsylvania’s Eastern Penitentiary).
Nevertheless, crime museums remain controversial. That is to say, they are contested social spaces. This owes to the fact that the museum itself is a site of spectacle that cannot avoid being embedded in the history of specular politics that haunts the history of crime and punishment. Additionally, the museums share a connection with the development of the professions (policing, medicine, the law, and the nation-state). It cannot be overstated that these institutions, in many respects, grew and prospered on the backs of marginalized and criminalized poor people, many of whom suffered for no other reason than that they were born into a powerless social class.
You can find the Cesare Lombroso Museum located on Via Pietro Giuria, 15, 10126, in Torino, Italy.
Sources
The “Born Criminal”? Lombroso and the Origins of Modern Criminology, by Emma Mason
Discussion Questions
What characteristics distinguish the Positivist School from the Classical School regarding criminological thought?
How did positivistic theories influence Lombroso? Do you see any validity in this approach?
What can Lombroso’s theories tell us about modern biological perspectives on crime? Do you think they cause these theories to be less popular?
What parts of Lombroso’s theory do you find least valid…more valid?
The Positivist School and the Classical School, founded in the late 1800s, believes that individuals have free will and make their own choices after they had thought it out. They believed that people will weigh the potential benefits and consequences of their actions before committing a crime. Resulting in punishments that should be reasonable to the crime to prevent future offences. It assumes that people are rational and will make choices based on their desires. On the other hand, the Positivist School, which was created in the 1900s changed the focus from free will to saying the criminals have no control over what influences them. Positivists believed that crimes were happening because of factors the person had no control over, such as genetics or the environment around them. They focus on the role of scientific methods in understanding crime. They don’t treat criminals as people making a conscious choice, they see them as products of their environment or genetics.
The “Father of Criminology,” Cesare Lombroso, is famous for a theory he presented, named “The born Criminal,” the theory stating from the looks of it that some men are just born to be criminals, physically made as criminals, pointing at a known arsonists skull and its resemblance that of an ape, he claimed that that the life of crime for certain people is inescapable. I find the theory dated and not valid. Specifically, I’d point out the difference between me and, say, my girlfriend; she and I have two utterly different head shapes and builds. Does this mean that solely based on those two differences, I am more likely to kill my fellow man than her? Of course not. The positivist school of thought influenced Lombroso as he employed scientific methods to study criminals, advocating for investigating physical characteristics and their links to criminal behavior. However, his ideas, such as the previously discussed “born criminals” theory, have been challenged, and studying biological and psychological factors in understanding crime has been. It can be beneficial to today’s criminology.
Positivistic theories, which started in the 19th century, focused on the idea that human behaviour could be explained through scientific means, like genetics instead of philosophical and psychological reasons. Cesare Lombroso was heavily influenced by these principles. He believed that criminal behaviour could be seen in biological and physical traits, for example skull shape, facial features, and genetics, which he argued as proof that criminals can be born. Lombroso’s thoughts were based on the idea that crime was determined by biological factors rather than just social or environmental influences.
While Lombroso’s theories were new in applying scientific thinking to criminology, they have, for the most part, been ignored. Today, modern criminology recognises that criminal behaviour is far much more than just the biological factors. It also includes the social, environmental, and psychological factors. Lombroso’s biological determinism is seen as being too simple, it fails to consider any other influences that affect criminals.
The Positivist School believed that behavior was derived from the internal or external influences and could be scientifically explained. The Classical School believed that individuals commit crimes because of their own personal desires. Positivist theories influenced Lombroso’s thoughts on physical appearance as it relates to crime. He took positivist views on scientifically explainable crime, and he used it to relate physical appearance to crime. I see where he was coming from with this approach. He took it farther than it should have been taken. There are people today who still judge people based on their appearance. For example, African American men are spoken to by the police for standing on a corner. I do think that these views do cause the theory to be less popular simply because of how extreme it is. I can’t get behind Lombroso’s theory on physical appearance indicating if somebody is a criminal or not. I think it is a ridiculous way of thinking. I do find his theory on people being born criminals to be a valid theory. I honestly do believe there is such a thing as a “bad seed.”
The characteristics that distinguish between the Positivist school from the Classical school are that the Positivist school is based more on determinism and the idea that there are external factors that create criminals whereas the Classical school is more based on ration and deterrence where free will causes crime. Positivistic theories influenced Lombroso by influencing him to think about biological factors such as physical defects, and evolution rather than free will and the classical school, I think initially this approach is valid since it is more scientific than psychological, but I think after he concluded some of his research it became invalid. The part of Lombroso’s theory that I, personally, found least valid was the stigmata that physical defects confirmed people as criminals because, everyone’s body is different and although there may be some similarities, there is no research proving this theory true and he had to revise that theory. The theory I found most valid is atavism, the idea of evolution and relation to apes. Lombroso’s theories tell us biological perspectives can possibly influence crime; I think these theories are in fact less popular because more modern theories don’t just focus on biological factors.
There were a lot of things within Lombroso’s theory that I disagreed with. Essentially the whole idea of the belief that people are more likely to commit a crime based on features given from birth does not resonate with me at all. I don’t doubt that there could be features shared in the thinking patterns or brain development of a majority of the same people who commit the same crimes, but the idea of their being external physical features that are shared by these people is just nonsensical and is just used to bias certain populations of society. I support the use of science in criminology as it is a fresh angle to look at criminal activity compared to the usual societal aspect. This way of using it though just proves to be reckless and inaccurate to a wide margin of citizens today are being harassed for the way that they look whether it be their race or another factor.
The characteristics that distinguish the Positivist School from the Classical School in criminology are quite notable. The Classical School focuses on free will, rationality, and deterrence, while the Positivist School emphasizes determinism, scientific analysis, and rehabilitation. Both schools have significantly influenced modern criminological thought and criminal justice policies.
Positivistic theories influenced Lombroso’s work, which was groundbreaking in using scientific methods to study crime. However, his theories have been widely criticized and discredited due to their lack of empirical support, ethical concerns about promoting biological determinism, and oversimplification of the complex factors influencing criminal behavior. Modern criminology recognizes that crime results from a mix of biological, psychological, and social influences.
Lombroso’s theories, despite being discredited, laid the groundwork for considering biological factors in the study of crime. Modern biological perspectives on crime have evolved significantly and now incorporate a broader range of factors, including genetics, neurobiology, and environmental influences. Lombroso’s simplistic and deterministic approach has indeed made his specific theories less popular, as contemporary research emphasizes the complexity and interaction of several factors rather than attributing criminal behavior solely to inherited physical traits.
The least valid parts of Lombroso’s theory are his ideas about atavistic features and the notion that physical characteristics can determine criminal behavior. These concepts lack empirical support and have been criticized for promoting stereotypes and discrimination.
The characteristics that distinguish Positivist school from Classical school are Positivist school is more about scientific and rehabilitative approaches while the Classical school emphasizes rationality and free will. Positivist school inspired Lombroso’s theories because he would use scientific methods to study crime. Lombroso believed that crime could be understood though biological and psychological factors just as Positivist school did.
His extreme focus was on biological determinism, this has left both a legacy and stigma that affects modern biological theories of crime. He has made biological perspectives on crime controversial. His emphasis on the scientific study of criminals, was a huge step forward in the field of criminology. The least valid aspect of Lombroso’s theory was his beliefs in using physical traits to identify criminals. This idea was based on biased assumptions. Later on they realized that the traits on those skulls of criminals were also found on non criminal skulls.
What Characteristics distinguish the positivist school from the classical school regarding criminological thought “why are people fascinated by the features of criminals?” Also, social, biological and influences. Lombroso was one of the first people to use scientific methods to study crime. He also believed criminals were born with certain traits that made them do the crime. Lombroso validity was focused on physical characteristics, but now the main focus I think is based on who you surround yourself with , the environment around you, and other factors. I do not think these theories in modern biological perspectives on crime would make the most sense on why people commit these crimes in the modern day I would say more like social and the environment or trauma or could be other factors, but Lombroso is less relevant to modern day. I think Lombroso theories were not valid they were more of what he thinks, and you cannot be born a criminal my opinion.
The major difference between the Classical and postitivist schools is the reason that each feels why people commit crimes. In the Classical School, it is stated that people commit crimes rationally and they think about the cost and benefits of doing so. Whereas the Positivist School in criminology suggests that crime is caused by external or internal factors. These factors can be social conditions, biological traits and also psychological issues. Classical School also focuses on the offense being committed and the Positivist school focuses actually on the criminal. Another difference between the two, Classical uses philosophy to understand the crime, and the Positivist uses science. and collecting data through observation and experiments.
The Classical School in criminology believes that crime is committed by people for selfish gain. Punishment is used to try to deter crime. Positivist School does not feel crime is not done solely by the persons free will, rather other factors cause them to do so.
I am somewhat a mix between the two. I think people could be wired to commit crimes based on internal and external factors, but I do think people commit crimes due to selfish reasons, and do not think it through. If I had to think one is more valid than the other, I do think more like the Positivist school because I think that there are those factors involved that create the minds of criminals. I would enjoy studying criminal behavior to determine reasons people commit crimes.
There are many characteristics that distinguish the Positivist School from the Classical School regarding criminological thought, but one of the main questions argued is “Why the person committed the crime.” The Positivist School suggests that behavior is determined by factors beyond individual control, such as biological, social, and psychological influences. This school also uses biological features to study criminal’s characteristics. Contrary to this school, the Classical School emphasizes the idea that individuals have free will, will make rational decisions, and weigh the costs and benefits before committing a crime. Lombroso was impacted by positivistic theories in multiple ways. He adopted a scientific methodology to the study of crime and believed that criminal behavior could be studied scientifically. Influenced by positivism Lombroso focused on the biological physiological characteristics of criminals, by studying skull size he said that certain features could identify born criminals. Later, it was determined that these skull traits that were found on criminals were also found on people who were not criminals.
It’s always very interesting for me to learn about the methods used in criminology studies, on this note the Positivist School differs from the Classical School mainly in its reliance on scientific methods. The Classical School, represented by thinkers like Beccaria and Bentham, focuses on rational choice and free will in criminal behavior. In contrast, the Positivist School emphasizes that behavior is influenced by biological, psychological, and social factors beyond individual control, highlighting the role of determinism.
Lombroso’s theories were influenced by positivism because he tried to use scientific methods to study crime. He conducted anatomical research on criminals, suggesting that certain physical traits could indicate criminal behavior. While I think this was a valuable early attempt to apply science to criminology, Lombroso’s conclusions were too simplistic, implying that people are born criminals. This view ignores the complexities of human behavior. Lombroso’s focus on physical traits helped shape modern biological theories that examine genetic factors in crime. However, many of his ideas have been discredited for being overly simplistic and lacking evidence so it cant be valid to be used as an actual research.
A characteristic that distinguishes the classical school of criminology from positivism, is the stage of crime committing which they’re describing. The classical school focuses more on the logic one uses to commit a crime, while positivism focuses on the methods used to discover/collect information about a committed crime. The classical school of criminology is a model of crime that assumes rational individuals commit crimes after mentally weighing their potential gains and/or consequences. Positivism holds that one will only find valid (positive) knowledge (on crime) after empirical investigation. Lombroso was noticeably influenced by the positivist theory, being that his theory of the “born criminal” was established after investigating Italian soldiers in lunatic asylums. He used the knowledge gained (which he assumed to be valid) to develop a study that claims that criminals have certain biological factors that influence their violent or delinquent behavior. I personally don’t see much validity in his approach, being that he studied a very similar group (soldiers of the same nationality) and most likely got very biased results. However, his theory could tell us a lot about modern biological perspectives, specifically the aspects of criminals that scientists study. Modern-day scientists also study skull indentations, brain damage and what not when examining the bodies of criminals and victims, which could have stemmed from Lombroso’s research. The aspect of Lombroso’s theory that I found least valid would be his claim that rapists have “jug ears”, habitual murderers have cold, glassy stares, and so on. Not all murderers and rapists have the same look, and stereotyping them could prevent us from spotting future offenders (since they’ll go unsuspected). I find his study of the brain/skulls of criminals most valid, since head injuries and such are more likely to influence abnormal behaviors.
The Positivist School does not rely on intuitive thinking like Classical school does, they rely more on facts and the truth, but not from experiences. The Positivist School originated around the early 19th century while Classical School originated around the 18th century, and their idea was to use philosophy to understand why people break the law, while the Positivist School uses science and logic. The positivistic theories influenced him by the fact he used medical science to identify types of criminals by the shapes of their skulls, face, etc. To be honest, maybe in the older times it would have been more valid, but currently with how there are so much more resources to be able to change the way you look, his theories would not be as valid or reliable. His theories tell us that there are lots of defined features on criminals’ bodies, like something that would scream a criminal, and it would have to depend on the theory whether it would be less or more popular. I find his theories to be least valid in all parts of it because he is essentially saying that all criminals have a distinct look on them that makes them look more like animals, or “savages” as he put it, in my opinion criminals look like anything, like there have been so many more criminals lately that look super innocent and human like, it is super impossible to look at someone these days and think if they are innocent or not.
The Classical School, which arose in the late 1700s, focuses on reason and personal choice, stating individuals should consider the outcomes of their decisions. Beccaria and Bentham believed that severe punishments could prevent crime. On the other hand, the Positivist School, which became popular in the mid-19th century, emphasizes that behavior is shaped by biological, psychological, and social factors that are not under an individual’s control. The Classical School emphasizes individual accountability, whereas the Positivist School focuses on investigating the root reasons for criminal conduct.
Lombroso was greatly impacted by positivism, promoting the use of scientific approaches in examining criminal behavior. In “Criminal Man,” he proposed that criminals could be recognized by distinct physical features referred to as “atavistic stigmata.” Despite being innovative, this biological determinism has received backlash, as contemporary criminology now leans towards a more comprehensive approach that takes into account genetics, psychology, and social factors in addition to biological elements.
Lombroso’s theories shed light on current debates about the biological factors of criminal behavior. His conviction that physical characteristics could suggest criminal inclinations aligns with contemporary studies on genetics and neurobiology. Also, modern scholars are careful due to the past misuse of biological determinism. They support a holistic approach that takes into account both biological and environmental factors in shaping criminal behavior.
Positivism states that knowledge is derived through experience, logic, and investigation. Lombroso’s born criminal theory, while in the present day it holds no water, did follow along this way of thinking. I can understand how he arrived at his conclusion, through personal experience dealing with criminals and his own investigation into the biological structure and appearance of various offenders; it makes sense that he interpreted his findings as facts. However, this theory appears to fall more inline with racism and eugenics. The atavistic stigmata that he deemed markers for criminal behavior are normal features for people of varying ethnicities and by claiming that people with the characteristics were predisposed to acting out criminal behavior people would have experienced racial, or ethnic, profiling. Similarly was phrenology, both were “scientific” advancements for its time, and even in present day the question remains of if there is a way to determine who is predisposed to commit crime and if there is a way to predict such before it happens. While this topic is certainly intriguing it’s a slippery slope that we must be wary of to prevent the persecution of certain groups of people.
I agree with positivist school way of think that we should be more based on true facts, but i do disagree with the claim we should reject the intuitive knowledge gain from personally experience because personally experience could bring in alot of knowledge we couldnt have acquired without personally exp. I do agree that the society we live in operates on set of laws like the physical world because without laws the society we know would be nothing but caos laws keep order and peace. I do highly disagree with Cesare Lombroso i do not believe that anyone who is ever been born was born a crimal. Crimals are shape by the environment they were raised in, the people they had around them when going up, where they were raised at, and the morals taught to them by there parents or by the guiding figure in there lives when they was growing up.
This chapter was super interesting to read. I thought the fact that in the past they were trying to come up with answers for criminals. The fact they landed on how a person looks obviously does not hold true today, but at the same time it feels incredibly interesting to see that they were simply trying to solve an issue. The ideas he had on criminals having certain features that actually determine if they will be one is in my opinion very interesting for the time period. Knowing what we know today, it’s understood that a criminal could be anyone regardless of what they look like and trying to weaponize facial features is dangerous in a society. Today crime profiling is a very big problem, especially with people of color. It is a common issue that people of nonwhite ethnic backgrounds are stopped more than their white peers, perhaps from a subconscious bias of those who are in law enforcement. Since 9/11, being able to detect if a person is or is not a criminal has become very important. That is in regards to if they are on a terrorist watch list. As of right now there is no way to tell if a person is or is not a criminal based on what they look like, but of course technology is advancing and this might not be the case down the line.
There are numerous different aspects to Lombroso’s theory. And just like any other theory, some aspects are more valid and reasonable than others. I think his most valid point would be the size of someone’s head determining if they are a criminal. One would think that if someone has a normal sized head, then they are not going to do anything because their head is just right. However, if their head is bigger or smaller than average, then they either have something that they should not have or they do not have something that they should have. If their head is bigger than average then they might have some extra chemical in their brain that makes them think irrationally and makes them a criminal. On the other hand, if their head was smaller than average, then they are lacking the chemical that would make them think rationally, making them do criminal things. His least valid point would be someone’s physical attributes determining if they are a criminal. Everyone has their own looks, making them look different from everyone else. Some people are born with genes that make them have physical features that someone would normally consider outside or normal. For example, Lombroso said that someone having a big nose and the shape of someone’s ears made them a criminal. No one has the same shape of ears, nor does anyone have the same shape and/or length of a nose. These physical attributes that he was looking at are what make everyone different. There is no way that the physical looks someone was born with could make them a criminal because there is no way of determining what physical attributes correlate with criminality because there are so many different combinations of physical attributes that there would be too many possibilities of what could have made them a criminal. Whether it be their ears, nose, fingers, etc. There would just be too many combinations for him to be able to lessen his possibilities.
The positivist school of criminological thought differs significantly from the classical school in several key ways while the classical school represented by theorists like Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham emphasized free will rationality and the role of punishment as a deterrent the positivist school introduced a more scientific and deterministic approach to understanding crime positivism particularly influenced by auguste comte ideas argued that human behavior including criminal behavior could be explained through empirical observation and the scientific method positivists believed that factors such as biology psychology and social environment played crucial roles in shaping an individual propensity to commit crimes rather than solely relying on rational choices this shift in perspective led to the use of scientific methods to study criminal behavior as exemplified by cesare lombroso lombroso was influenced by positivism in his belief that criminality was not solely a result of free will but could be biologically determined he suggested that some individuals were born criminals due to physical characteristics and atavistic traits that harkened back to earlier evolutionary stages while his ideas were groundbreaking in introducing scientific methods to criminology many aspects of lombroso s theories have been discredited over time modern criminology recognizes the complexity of criminal behavior influenced by a combination of genetic environmental and psychological factors therefore his theory is considered less valid today as it oversimplifies the causes of criminal behavior and lacks empirical support however lombroso s work remains historically significant as it laid the foundation for the study of the biological aspects of crime albeit with more nuanced approaches in contemporary criminology
As seen in the last section, the classical theory of criminology argues that criminals are not born but they are made. Mainly due to the fact that all human beings have free will and every individual is believed to assess the consequences of an action before they make a decision. On the other hand, the positivist school believes that criminals are born and that there are distinctive physical and biological attributes that an individual possesses that make him/her a criminal. One aspect that characterizes positivist school is that it believes theories should be backed by verifiable data, “knowledge attained by a process of investigation”. Consequently, Lombroso used scientific methods to study the body of a criminal in an attempt to explain the differences between normal individuals and lunatics. His investigation found that a specific individual who had been a criminal while still alive presented animalistic characteristics which lead Lombroso to the conclusion that people who commit crimes are less developed individuals.
Although Lombroso’s approach of criminology was based on verifiable data, further research showed that not all people with the animalistic characteristics were criminals. Thus, making Lombroso’s findings and data not at all valid.
It’s interesting to see past scientists try to explain human behavior by examining physical traits, and it’s easy to see how they can come to this conclusion with their little knowledge and archaic technology. Lombroso’s theories have become unpopular in modern times as they are based in uncontrollable physical attributes, not to mention their influence on the minds of people such as Hitler. It is also intriguing yet a little worrying to see that with advancements in modern technology, scientists are trying from different angles to explore this theory. At the same time, I think this isn’t exactly expected because as humans we wish to find reasoning behind everything, and if we can find a solution as clear as “bad genes cause people to commit crimes” then many people will try to find it. The link between positivism and Lombroso’s approach are clear as he strictly comes to his findings based on observations of the human body, though at times he strays away from positivism by disregarding the fact that his observations are consistent with non-criminals as well. I can admire Lombroso’s curiosity and dedication to science and the pursuit of knowledge, but at the end of the day he was afraid to admit his reasonings were flawed.
Regarding criminological thought, there are many factors that distinguish between classical and positivist theories. The Classical School relates more towards rational thought and what influences our decision making. The Positivist school is associated with valid knowledge that has been found through empirical investigation. Over the years, there have been many positivist theories that have helped scientists conduct research, including Lombroso. His theory of the born criminal was very popular in the late 19th and early 20th century. After he studied the biological differences between convicted criminals and non-convicted criminals, Lombroso concluded that some people were born to offend. His ideas were very convincing during this time, so he had many people believing that this was true. I find Lombroso’s thought of physical attributes allowing someone to be born a criminal as invalid. While I do believe that morals and how and where someone is raised can influence their behavior, I do not believe that physical biological factors make someone born a criminal.
Classical school of thought believed that a crime that an offender commits are a result of their free will. The difference is, the positivist school of thought believes that hereditary factors and external influences are the major influences on a persons behavior. For instance, a person was under the influence while committing a crime and they couldn’t think wisely. So their punishment should be less severe. Lombroso believed the same as positivist he focused on the criminal more than he crime, which I believe is a valid approach because everyone’s world view and morals is influenced by their environment and I believe we should focus on rehabilitation as much as or more than we focus on the punishment.one thing I don’t believe is valid in Lombroso’s theory is that criminals could be identified by their physical defects and their appearance makes them more savage.
The Positivist School is distinguished from the Classical School by the difference in ideas of why someone commits crime. The Positivist School believes that individuals have no free will and cannot control their behavior, while the Classical School believes that individuals have free will and can rationally make the decision whether or not to commit a crime. The Positivist school uses biological features to determine whether or not someone has the disposition of a criminal. The Classical School thinks that anyone with a rational mind can decide to commit a crime after weighing the potential consequences and benefits.
How did positivistic theories influence Lombroso? Do you see any validity in this approach? Positivistic theories influenced Lombroso with the idea that positive knowledge might be achieved through a process of investigation. Lombroso used this idea to examine criminals in order to come up with features that identify criminals. I do not think this approach is valid because many people who have not committed any crimes share the same “criminal” features as criminals. I think Lombroso’s theories make modern biological theories less popular because they were proved wrong, but I think that the biological factor that matters most to whether or not someone has a tendency to commit crime is the way someone’s brain is developed. Looking at it, the physical features of someone only make someone more capable of different things, while the brain development changes the way they think.
The Positivist school was all about using scientific evidence and data to back up your research. Lombroso, a famous criminologist, did his research using the scientific method and facts and data to support his ideas. Back in his time, this research was a big deal and made sense. But today, his idea that some people are born criminals doesn’t really hold up. There’s not much evidence to say that how someone looks determines if they’ll be a criminal. Back then, they thought people who seemed less evolved were more likely to be criminals, but this was more of a feeling than real science. Even though Lombroso’s research isn’t so credible today, the overall idea of positivism still makes sense and is still used today in research. Nevertheless, people still judge others based on looks because they’ve been taught to think that criminals look a certain way. While there is some research suggesting biology plays a role in crime, it’s not a sure thing. The idea that certain physical features make you more likely to commit crimes doesn’t have strong scientific support. In the end, there’s no perfect scientific way to predict who will become a criminal.
I do think that there is a lot of information to take in within these articles, but as far as the research I don’t believe there is evidence and research. I’m not sure I agree at all that a person’s facial features can determine whether they are a criminal or not. I believe a person with similar facial structure to a person that has been a criminal can grow up in a great environment and be one of the cleanest individuals which would go against a person’s facial structures being able to say that they are a criminal. When you go into it a little deeper and talk about someone’s outcome based on their family history, or based on their mental health, or even based on their environment, I do believe that those things can affect people on becoming and being a criminal. But When it comes to the more modern findings about criminal behavior possibly being a genetic problem, that will cause many problems in our justice system. Because People will commit murders and many other different crimes and blame it on their genetic malfunctions rather than their own free will or something that may seriously be wrong with them.
I believe that people are so fascinated by the features of criminals because they are looking for answers. A majority of the public cannot handle the answer “it’s complicated”, so instead of letting there be unknown answers they try to come up with their own. It’s very easy for people to say a specific type of person is a criminal whether it’s because of their race, gender, where they are from, or their wealth status. As much as someone can say a specific type of person is more likely to commit a crime then another person, the fact of the matter is, there is no science behind it, and it is just stereotyping. Reading Lombroso’s “born criminal” theory hundreds of years later, we now say that it’s ridiculous and proven to be false, but society still stereotypes and generalizes what a “criminal” looks like to this day. I feel like criminologists and biologists beginning to speak of a new theory that criminality may be inherited as a set of genetic deficits, can be harmful if they go about it the wrong way. Society has seen what happens when a specific group of people are all generalized as criminals in history, like the Holocaust. Lombroso’s theory about female criminals is sexist, he believed that female criminals were lustful and immodest with dark hair. Saying that a woman is a criminal because she is immodest has no validity or science behind it. His description of criminals basically described any non-white person, which is very detrimental. While Lombroso was the first person to use scientific methods to study crime and has many famous “discoveries”, I feel like many of his theories are destructive.
The classical school of thought believes that a crime that an offender commits is a result of their free will. While the positivist school of thought believes in the concept of biological determinism, which means that hereditary factors are the major influences on a person’s behavior. Cesare Lombroso was the founder of positivist criminology, which argued that a criminal mind was inherited and could be identified by physical features and defects. He was heavily influenced by a misunderstood Darwin. I thought it was interesting how Lombroso’s theories stated how he believed that criminals were less evolved. He also spoke about how he believed that criminality was inherited and that criminals can be identified by “physical defects”. I thought it was just not only stereotypical but not such a good way of thinking about what a criminal can be. I think anyone who read his theory and believed would cause issues in the law enforcement because they would always look at what Lombroso theory of what a “criminal” looks like and assume anybody with those features deserve to be questioned.
This was a very interesting chapter. I also agree with Positivism, although there are a lot of unproven theories in the world, the widely accepted theories are still valid. The later research on The Father of Modern Criminology Cesare Lombroso opened up to me the relationship between crime physiology and genetics. It reminded me that I had read about super-man syndrome. Simply put, some males have one more Y chromosome than normal males. Such people will be born with extremely violent tendencies and impatient personalities that lack patience and are more likely to form anti-social personalities later in life. Their genes make them more likely to become criminals. Nowadays, it is difficult to find a way to make this group of people get effective treatment. Because it is a genetic defect. At present, according to what I have seen, most hospitals that test the xyy chromosome of a pregnant woman’s unborn child will strongly recommend that she have an abortion. Although it cannot be stated that all people with xyy chromosomes will grow to be criminals later on, it is possible to know scientifically that the likelihood is much greater than normal. This may seem like a shocking truth, but having a scientifically certified basis means it’s credible.
I think that It’s important to keep in mind that contemporary criminology typically incorporates components of the Classical and Positivist methods, noting that criminal behavior is influenced by a variety of individual choices and numerous underlying factors. Positivist criminology is built on the scientific approach. Positivism in criminology uses empirical research, including studies in biology, psychology, and sociology, to identify the reasons for crime. They believe that interventions and laws can be more effective if criminal behavior is understood scientifically. Positive psychology had a huge influence on Lombroso’s beliefs because he was a key character in the Positivist School of Criminology. Lombroso’s study posed a fundamental challenge to the Classical School’s emphasis on free will and reasoned decision-making as the primary reasons for criminal behavior. Modern biological theories on crime take a more nuanced tack, acknowledging the significance of heredity as well as the complex interplay between several variables that influence criminal behavior. Lombroso’s work could be viewed as a historical artifact that impacted the development of more sophisticated.
I agree with positivism, I think that using verified data should be how we all live; why believe in something when you have nothing to back it up? I agree with Lombroso as well as the discipline of criminology because I think you can be born with those sorts of intentions, but your social and cultural forces mostly make someone become a criminal. I am really interested in the psychology aspect of it, as the way the brain of a criminal works. How we are similar but deep down we are so vastly different. The research that Lombroso did on Villella, after he passed. He found that Villella had an indention on the back of his skull that looked like the ones in apes. One thing that I definitely disagree with from Lombroso’s theories is when he talks about how physical characteristics can contribute to them being “born a criminal”. While yes they could be born with a criminal brain, physical attributes mean nothing to their actions; that’s all about their brains.
Positivism uses scientific observations to understand behavior, such as criminal actions. During Lombroso’s time, the focus shifted from viewing criminals as solely choosing bad actions to considering underlying biological, psychological, or environmental reasons. Lombroso, at the forefront of this shift, believed that physical “stigmata” could identify innate criminals. However, later research disproved this, finding these traits in non-criminals too.
Lombroso’s theories, while pioneering, also perpetuated harmful stereotypes about race and gender. His suggestion that certain groups appeared “less evolved” was problematic. Additionally, his emphasis on biological determinants overshadowed the role of the environment in influencing behavior. His views on female criminals were particularly reductive and stereotype-driven. Despite these flaws, Lombroso’s contribution to criminology is noteworthy for emphasizing scientific research over mere blame. However, blending cultural sensitivity with scientific investigation is crucial to avoid harming specific groups.
Lombroso was somewhat correct in his idea that the brain can “birth” criminals. While we know that criminals are actually born evil, brain chemistry through genetics is a relevant factor in crime that is still being studied today. If it wasn’t, there would be no debate of nature vs. nurture. His belief that female criminals tend to be dark-haired, lustful and imodest seem heavily based on misogyny. Him saying that black-haired women were likely to be criminals immediately reminded me of the withcraft period, more specifically British Parliment’s declaration that any woman who wore red lipstick would be tried for witchcraft because it meant that she was using powers to seduce men. To me, both of these seem like ridiculous justifications of determining how women should and should not appear. From what I know, his statement that female criminals are more ruthless than male criminals is false. Even in terms of suicide, women are known for using less painful methods of inducing death, while men use the most violent ones. Another one of Lombroso’s ideas that sat very unwell with me was the description of appearances of criminals. He claimed that phsyical defects made people “savages”, continuing to list features such as large jaws and large, flat noses. This way of thinking, based on Darwinism, is heavily rooted in racism, implying that people of people of colour, especially people originating from Africa appear as criminals because they posess “less evolved” features. Darwinsim was often used to justify slavery, with Europeans saying that people who looked “less evolved” were more comparable to animals than white people. Overall, I personally think that while there was some truth to Lombroso’s teachings, most of his ideas were incredibly harmful, pushing false narratives into society.
Lombroso’s theories, which actually proposed a biological basis for criminal behavior, have significantly influenced modern biological perspectives on crime. One another note, they have also contributed to the skepticism surrounding such theories. Lombroso’s idea that certain physical characteristics could identify criminals, such as the notion of the “born criminal,” is now considered simplistic and largely discredited in contemporary criminology. Over time, Modern biological perspectives on crime have evolved to focus more on complex interactions between genetic, neurological, and environmental factors, acknowledging that criminal behavior is not solely determined by biology. The shortcomings of Lombroso’s theories, in light of the limited empirical support and the potential for stigmatization, have likely contributed to their reduced popularity in modern criminology, which seeks a more nuanced and multidisciplinary understanding of criminal behavior.
In Lombroso’s theory, the notion of the “born criminal” based on physical characteristics I feel is one of the least valid aspects. This idea that certain physical traits could definitively identify individuals predisposed to criminal behavior lacks empirical support and is overly simplistic. This also makes it stereotypical and very bias. Not every criminal acts and looks the same, on top of the fact that not all criminals have the same exact reason on committing the crime. On the other hand, Lombroso’s recognition of the potential influence of biological factors on criminality contains some validity. While his specific physical attributes may not hold up, contemporary research acknowledges that genetics and neurobiology can play a role in predisposing individuals to criminal behavior, although these factors interact with a complex array of environmental and social factors. Even while Lombroso’s theory as a whole is largely discredited, it did open the door to the exploration of biological factors in understanding criminal behavior, albeit in a more nuanced and refined manner than he originally proposed.
Lombroso’s theory explains how one’s skull structure can tell if they are a criminal or not. After Villella’s death, Lombrosos did some research on his body and found that the back of Villella’s skull had an ident in it like the one found on the back of apes skulls. This shows how people out in the world could be behind in evolution, causing them to act out in a more primitive way. It was also said that the different features on the person’s face could tell you which type of criminal they will be. For example it says that a thief would have an expressive face, manual face dexterity, and small wandering eyes. It also says that murders have cold glassy stares, bloodshot eyes, and big noses. According to Lomrosos these are the things that he thought identified a born criminal. I think that his theories are fascinating because the research that Lombrosos had done seems like people could be born as criminals because of their genetic makeup. I did some extra research and It says that Lombroso’s theory was not true. But I do believe that some people can be born criminals because of their genetic makeup, and where they grew up. Because the world today is continually getting worse and more dangerous.
Cesare Lombroso is one of the first people to study crime through scientific methods, unlike previous theorists, Beccaria, and Bentham. Before Lombroso, the classical school used philosophy to understand why criminals committed their crimes, but during positivism, people used science to understand why criminals commit crimes. In 1871, Lombroso was an army doctor visiting lunatic asylum inmate, Giuseppe Viella. He found the criminal to be interesting because of his agility and cynicism, so he conducted a post-mortem on the body. He concluded from the skull that this man was a more primitive form of man and was therefore “born” with a predisposition to crime. With the advanced technology of today, however, we know that psychical characteristics of a person does not make them predisposed to crime. Some insights can be made as to why Lombroso came to these conclusions such as the development of certain portions of the brain which may have to do with behavioral changes but does not fully “predict” the criminality of a given individual. Despite the false claim that Lombroso was making, he did uncover the scientific aspect of Criminology and furthered advances towards understanding what makes people criminals.
Positivism is the philosophical belief that positive knowledge might be achieved through a process of investigation, whereby one comes to understand natural phenomena, including their properties and relations. In contrast, the classical school of thought believed that individuals made rational decisions and were responsible for their outcomes. Essentially, positivism was the first philosophical belief that wanted to utilize the scientific method, while the classical school was more focused on ethics and morality. Positivism was first seen in the field of criminology in the work of Italian scientist Cesare Lombroso. He tried to analyze the biological differences between convicted criminals and regular individuals, using a scientific approach to do so. Although his findings are looked down upon today, it was not unreasonable of him to investigate what causes the difference in criminality. Unfortunately, while modern scientists find Lombroso’s findings regarding biological differences ridiculous today, some of his work is continued today. A prominent example is that many criminologists and sociologists try to find if low IQ levels are predictive of criminality. Another is trying to find if biological sex affects criminality as well. Despite being incorrect about his theory, Lombroso was correct in understanding that the brain is responsible for thinking and that different parts of the brain were responsible for different things.
So far, positivist and classical theories have been covered. Classical theory mainly concerns rational thought and individual choices, while positivism bases itself on fact and truth. Positivism brings a new viewpoint into the field, its impact benefits the criminology field immensely. The theory I find least valid was that Lombroso believed that criminals had certain characteristics. His theories brought biology into play with factors such as defects or genetics, basically criminals can be identified by their certain physical characteristics. Eventually, finding no pattern through physical appearance leaves Lombroso with no way to further his research. If someone has larger shaped arms or dark shaded tattoos, this obviously does not make the subject a criminal, only a person who made the choice to permanently ink themselves. I do not think physical appearance has anything to do with someone’s lifestyle of choice, I believe that the criminal justice system should rely on hard evidence and proof, not superstition.
So far, positivist and classical theories have been covered. Classical theory mainly concerns rational thought and individual choices, while positivism bases itself on fact and truth. Positivism brings a new viewpoint into the field, its impact benefits the criminology field immensely. The theory I find least valid was that Lombroso believed that criminals had certain characteristics. His theories brought biology into play with factors such as defects or genetics, basically criminals can be identified by their certain physical characteristics. Eventually, finding no pattern through physical appearance leaves Lombroso with no pattern to work with. If someone has larger shaped ears or tattoos, this obviously does not make that subject a criminal, only a person who made the choice to permanently ink themselves. I do not think physical appearance has anything to do with someone’s lifestyle of choice, I believe that the criminal justice system should rely on hard evidence and proof, not superstition.
So far, positivist and classical theories have been covered. Classical theory mainly concerns rational thought and individual choices. Moving to the influence of Lombroso, he was a scientist. Scientists are seen as very intelligent and credible, just as all the evidence and testing seemed to prove Lombroso’s work. His theories brought biology into play with factors such as defects or genetics. Moreover, finding no pattern through physical appearance leaves Lombroso with no pattern to work with. This statement leaves an audience with the original thought of “who is committing crimes and why”. Lastly, one thing I can point out that lacks validity within this theory is physical appearance. If someone has larger shaped ears or tattoos, this obviously does not make that subject a criminal, only a person who made the choice to permanently ink themselves. I believe that the criminal justice system should rely on hard evidence and proof not superstition.
Positivism is the belief that correct knowledge can be obtained through investigation. Many people used this theory to prove their hypothesis about criminals. Cesare Lombroso was a scientist who tried to explain crime from a biological standpoint. He argued that certain features of an individual make them more likely to commit a crime like their hair being dark or ears being different shapes to name a few. He was later disproven because his characteristics of a criminal were also found in the general public equally. That didn’t stop people from believing that something biologically responsible for crime though. Phrenology is the pseudo-science that says if a person has an abnormal-sized part of the brain, it causes them to commit more insane crimes. People tried to blame the problem of crime on physical attributes and not on the system or society at large which are the real reasons that drive people to commit crimes.
The positivist school of criminology differs in many ways from the classical school of criminology. The classical school is based on rationality-criminals use free choice to decide to commit crimes, punishment for crimes, and deterrence. Positivism takes a new approach in valuing investigation and true knowledge gained from empirical data to come to conclusions. Positivism had a huge impact on scientists and the way they see criminals. Cesare Lombroso was one of these scientists in the nineteenth century. Lombroso used the scientific method for much of his research, which involves gathering empirical evidence. Lombroso also believed that criminals were born criminals and one could distinguish a criminal by their physiological makeup. I do not see much validity in this approach because the physical characteristics of a criminal can be the same as a non-criminal. Modern biological perspectives on crime suggest that criminals have a genetic makeup causing them to inherently be born criminals. Lombroso’s theories tell us that this may not be the case. There are copious amounts of theories to try to explain what makes up a criminal. It may just be more than one theory and many factors too complex to know for sure.
The differences between the classical and the positivism schools of criminology are separated by the trains of thought that back these very different schools. The Classical theory of criminology depends on the idea that the crime is the main basis for what should be focused on and not the criminal themselves. The punishment and parade surrounding the conviction of a criminal is what is most important to the classical theory, whereas the positivism theory focuses on how the criminal was convicted to commit said crime and the science behind why criminals commit crimes. Positivism tries to figure out the different natural and environmental variables and occurrences that have affected a person and how they are driven to break the law. Lombroso’s approach to criminological theory is interesting in the fact that it is based purely off of prejudice and judgment to determine who is and who isn’t a criminal by birth. His theory of criminality based off of the stigmata is flawed in the idea that someone who could match the description of a criminal in this theory could be the most upstanding person ever, as well as the idea that someone who has no correlation to the theory or match and characteristic could be the most violent and heinous criminal of all time. However his ideas that facial features can actually loosely relate to what we attribute to criminals is somewhat valid, as humans have evolved to detect each other’s appearances as more or less predatory just based on the facial features of a person.
Positivism, a term coined by philosopher Auguste Comte, is a philosophical theory with the idea that positive knowledge is possibly achieved through a process of investigation. This theory has the idea that that truth is discovered from knowledge learned through empirical investigation and rejects intuitive knowledge as well as metaphysics and theology. The idea of positivism also say that society operates based on general laws that are present. Cesare Lombroso is known as “the Father of Modern Criminology” and he was one of the first people to study crime. Because Lombroso was a scientist, he used the scientific method in his studies, which was not something other people did, like Beccaria or Bentham. He was influenced by positivism because it relied on empirical data, and he used his scientific studies while researching more into his theory of the born criminal, in which he believed that criminality was inherited and that criminals could be identified by physical defects that confirmed them as being atavistic or savage. Personally, I feel like this way of identifying a criminal was not the best way to do it. In fact, he found out that many of the features were present in non-criminals, almost an equal proportion to the number of criminals with these features. Because of this, he had to revise his previous theory. In his new theory, he believed that “it was a biological predisposition to commit crime as evidenced by stigmata (not the environment) that led to the commission of crime” for almost all cases.
Lombroso theory is based on the idea that people are born as criminals and that you can determine who is going to be born a criminal by examining their biological features like the size of their skull size and nose. I think that certain people can be destined to a life in crime from the environment they grew up in such as poverty, born into a hateful society, or in a society where certain devious acts were considered acceptable, but the term born a criminal is not valid. However, his assumption that violent crimes such as murder and rape are done by people that have certain characteristics. Characteristics like no remorse, vain, impulsiveness and are very cruel. He pointed out early distinctions of a psychopath or sociopath tendencies.
The Classical School and Positivist School both have distinguishes that make them unique to the era they were used. The Classical School mainly focused on the crime and not necessarily the criminal. Punishments were to be severe, swift, and certain to the consequences of an action. The Positivist School was to inform the early formulations of scientific criminological testing and theorizing in the discipline of criminology. It was more to look into the science behind criminology rather than what’s in front of you. Positivistic theories influenced Lombroso because he believed the criminal behaviors were inherited rather than learned or by being in a certain circumstance. Lombroso’s theory was that people were born criminals and that criminals had characteristics that differed them from others. I personally don’t believe that actual physical characteristics such as, the shape of ears, larger chins, etc, have an effect on who is a criminal. It’s more of what is happening in the persons brain or the situation they are in.
What part of Lombrso’s Theory do I find most but also least valid? Ceaser Lombrso was before his time in consider looking at crime through science instead by theories, which was the first major person of interest in how people viewed criminal’s from the late 1800’s all the way up to at least a large population of humans viewing Lombrso’s Theory as the correct scientific method to view crime, (when in reality it should be viewed by the scientific way of disadvantages people of lower classes or other groups that were marginalized by white europeans which had no true evidence in there beliefs.) The only issue that comes with a lot of his scientific research begins with heavy influences from the past theories of how people would be considered a “born” criminals. This is why I found his theory very invalided. Which is why we need to acknowledge the fact that Lombrso was quote on quote was before his time, when saying that we should like at crime through science and not theories is correct. But we also need to state how his work itself was wrong and lead to many human genocides that still have survivors from those crimes against humanity.
A process of investigation may lead to the acquisition of positive knowledge, according to the philosophy of positivism. Positivism maintains that the only reliable knowledge is posterior knowledge. Additionally, it asserts that society functions in accordance with fundamental laws just like the natural world. Throughout the development of western thinking, various authors and philosophers are credited with developing the positivist perspective. The philosopher Augusta Comte developed the term’s contemporary meaning in the early 19th century. He maintained that society functions in much the same way that the physical world does, in accordance with gravity and other unchanging laws. Lombroso thought that criminality was hereditary and that physical flaws could be used to identify criminals and establish their atavistic or primitive nature. For instance, the expressive face, manual dexterity, and small wandering eyes of a burglar could be used to identify him. These were only a few instances of those types of criminals. When it was discovered that the stigmata Lombroso detected in the minds of criminals were also present in the minds of non-criminals, he was obliged to reevaluate his theory.
The classical school uses philosophy to understand why people break the law, while the positivist school uses science to gain those understandings. Positivism is a theory created by Auguste Comte in the early 19th century. It utilizes knowledge and evidence to reveal how society functions. Positivism is based on empiricism, which are facts gained from the senses. Cesare Lombroso is known as the father of modern criminology. Positivistic theory influenced him into using science to help understand crime. He was the fist to use scientific methods to study crime. His idea of being born a criminal stemmed from criminals being born with a natural tendency to be savage. He noticed after Villella’s death, there was an indentation in the back of his skull, which was also was found in apes. After hearing his thoughts on features that identified criminals I found it to be less valid. I feel it is stereotypical to identify a criminal based on how they look. Being born with a big hawk-like nose is not a choice, so how is that fair to point out most people who murder have a nose with that shape.
Positivism is a philosophical theory based on the idea that positive knowledge might be achieved through a process of investigation. Positivism holds valid knowledge found only in a posteriori knowledge. It also holds that society, much like the natural physical world, operates according to general laws. The positivist approach can be traced to different writers and thinkers throughout the history of western thought. The modern understanding of the term was formulated by the philosopher Augusta Comte in early 19th century. He argued that much as the physical world operates according to gravity and other absolute laws, so does society. Lombroso believed that criminality was inherited and that criminals could be identified by physical defects that confirmed them as being atavistic or savage. A thief for example could be identified by his expressive face, manual dexterity, and small wandering eyes. This were just some of the examples of a “born criminal”. Lombroso was forced to revise his theory when it was found that the “stigmata” he identified in criminals was present in non criminals minds.
Cesare Lombroso was considered the father of modern criminology. Lombroso was not just a ordinary many, most intelligent findings in crime would be accounted by from philosophers, and lawyers. Beccaria was a lawyer and Bentham was a philosopher. The connection between criminology and Lombroso had an even greater outcome. Lombroso was a scientist that used criminal theories to determine why people commit crimes. His popular works include what he is known best for and that is his theory of a born criminal. This basically stated that certain attributes within a person’s skull could be the reasoning behind their acts. This was very popular in the 19th century and the 20th century. This also went into specific attributes about the persons skin like palms, facial structure and even cheekbone heights. Unfortunately, this theory was eventually proven wrong when several non-criminals have these same attributes. As years past Gall’s and the phrenologists assumed that thoughts, and characters were in certain parts of the brain. Lombroso opened the door for many other scientific hypothesizes related to brain and structures to the likely hood of that person to a criminal or non-criminal.
Positivism is a theory that is merely based off just facts and evidence. It is different from the classical theory because it just uses facts. One of Lombroso theories was that we are born criminals. We are criminals from the very beginning. One big thing apart of his theory that is sometimes used today, is when someone commits a crime, we look for suspects in a way for how they are dressed and how they look. In today’s world, if you are walking down the road and you are a specific race and you’re wearing all black clothes more likely than not you are going to get stopped and questioned by the police because of the crime that was just committed in the vicinity you are in. Modern biological aspects of crime are huge in today’s world, many biologist and crime investigators work side by side solving crimes and being able to help each other out when they need it to be able to find people based off biology and the good thing is. Biology will always be here, so it will always be a tool for investigators to find criminals or solve a crime.
In the early 19th century, philosopher Auguste Comte developed positivism. He claimed that just as the social world functions in accordance with gravity and other unchanging rules, so does the physical world. Positivism is a philosophical philosophy built on the premise that one can learn to understand natural events drawn from sense experience and interpreted self reason and logic through a process of investigation. The positivist school uses science, whereas the classical school turns to philosophy to try to understand why people break the law. According to positivism, the same variables that impact adults and children which is employment, poverty, family life, culture, health affect both groups equally. One of the first individuals in history to investigate crime and offenders using scientific approaches was Cesar Lombroso. Following a meeting with a criminal and a scientist, he became fascinated. Lombroso performed a post-Mortem on the criminal after he had died, and found that his subject was unique. He has a skull indentation that is usually only seen in apes. Since making the discovery that marked the start of Lombroso’s career as a criminal anthropologist. Since there is no way for this to be genuinely demonstrated to be accurate, I don’t see any actual proof in this technique. Crime exists in the current day with people of all racial, ethnic, cultural, religious backgrounds, and political viewpoints. I firmly believe that no one is born a criminal, and there is no proof that criminals have a different skeleton than average individuals. I think it all comes down to growing up and the experiences you had in your life to shape you into a criminal.
Cesare Lombroso is one of the first people to study crime and had the theory that you are born a criminal and the way you look makes you a criminal. He also looked at positivism, the idea that positive knowledge is achieved through investigation and rejects metaphysics and theology. Positivist theories influenced Lombroso because he looks at people as being inherited as a criminal and their looks make them a criminal and has conducted experiments on people and concluded he agrees with positivist schools. I disagree with these positivist theories as they are in no way proven true, but they are proven wrong in today’s society. The different characteristics a positivist school will have from a classical school is that the positivism school will not use facts or studied theories or conclusions like a classical would, instead informing the early formulations of scientific criminological testing and theorizing in the discipline of criminology. In modern society these theories on biological perspectives on crime can be present in stereotypes (race, religion, political views), but noty being born a criminal. The theories of being born a criminal and it being genetically passed down is not seen as a popular theory in today’s society. The least valid point by Lombroso is that the way you look makes you a criminal because the majority of people with these characteristics will not commit crimes.
Positivism was developed by Auguste Comte in the early 19th century. It is the concept that positive knowledge is achieved through investigation. Along with this, positivist school is based on true facts, unlike classical school. Positivism also states that society operates under general laws. This influenced a famous criminology figure, Cesare Lombroso. He came up with the theory that we are born criminals. By looking at both physical and mental factors, we can point out a criminal. He mainly studied the brain and features of the body that relate to crimes. Although I believe that the brain can hold criminal tendencies, I don’t believe his theory is valid. Committing crimes cannot be inherited and more importantly, facial features cannot determine a criminal. For example, he believed that murderers had hawk-like noses and rapists had jug ears. Although this may be true in some cases, not everyone with a hawk nose is a murderer. We can make conclusions on appearance, but not features. School shooters are a great example of this. Kids can tell when another student is a threat to them based on how they act, not on their facial features. Even though Lombroso’s theory was partially incorrect, he still made great accomplishments in his life.
To start off what is Positivism? Positivism is a philosophical theory based on the idea that positive knowledge might be achieved through a process of investigation. Positivist school is different compared to classical school. It’s different because positivist school if based off of facts and the truth while classical school is not based off of facts. The most part of the his theory I think is the least valid is how when someone looks like they didn’t something in the wrong because of the way they are dressed and the way they look. And in todays world that’s just how it is. If there has been a crime committed and there is someone walking down the street with a hoodie and a different race they are getting stopped because of just the way their appearance and it isn’t right. Which this has caused so many problems in todays world. so I feel that’s one of the parts I like are least valid.
First, who was Lombroso and what was his theory exactly? He was a scientist trained in medical science and is mostly known for this work ‘Criminal Man’ in 1876, his theory of the born criminal. Lombroso concluded that some criminals were born with the tendency to commit crimes or be criminals. In this study, there are certain aspects that seem both slightly valid and not valid at all. For instance, Lombroso mentions parts of the brain being a certain way affecting if one can be a criminal. In some cases, this can definitely be true. If we look at people classified as sociopaths and psychopaths, there is something physically unbalanced with the brain, and this could trigger criminal activity from and individual. The part that I believe is completely invalid is his theory that one could tell who is a criminal due to the way that they look. This is very speculative and, in my opinion, contributed to the development of stereotypes. There is no type of evidence that can prove the way someone looks can determine if they commit a crime. To say one’s looks and capabilities like being more dexterous or having a narrow face is naturally born a criminal is absurd. This reminds me of our current issues today. A young black man deemed dangerous because he’s wearing a hoodie or being suspected of a crime he did not commit.
Positivism is a vert common topic in philosophy and evidently in criminology. It was developed by Auguste Comte in the early 19th century. Positivism is essentially the idea that positive knowledge can be achieved through investigation to where people begin to understand why things happen in life. In addition, positivism says that society operates under general laws. It rejects the idea that personal experiences give you this positive knowledge. Quite possibly the most important figure in criminology is Cesare Lombroso. He is known as the father of modern criminology because of the fact he was the first person to use scientific evidence to explain crimes. His theory of being born criminal dominated the field of criminology for nearly two centuries. He basically says that criminals can be identified through physical defects as he states that criminality was inherited. He said that a thief, for example, could be identified by his expressive face, manual dexterity, and small, wandering eyes. Habitual murderers meanwhile had cold, glassy stares, bloodshot eyes and big hawk-like noses, and rapists had ‘jug ears’. It was also believed that by examining the shape and unevenness of a head or skull, one could discover the development of areas of the brain that are responsible for different intellectual aptitudes and character traits. I don’t really believe in this idea because you can’t predict a criminal just by their looks. The most normal looking people can be criminals and on the opposite end of the spectrum those other people could not be criminals. It’s just an odd predictor of a criminal and I don’t think there is enough scientific evidence to back it up.
Positivism came at a time when criminology greatly needed a new school of thought, revolving around evidence and facts. Lombroso’s medical view of criminology greatly benefited the community, by going about his study using scientific methods. Lombroso’s Criminal Man could not be hypothesized without research and evidence backing his hypothesis, or the theory would just be that, a theory. This difference between the thinkers of the Enlightenment and those from the Positivist viewpoint is what allows us to advance in research, as the thinkers of the Enlightenment proposed many ideas and thoughts, but mostly led by logic and reason. Lombroso’s Stigmata theory from today’s point of view sounds almost like a tabloid headline with not much evidence to back up. His revision of his theory after it was found false still is fixated on a biological predisposition, which I would assume his fascination on the subject came from his time working in an asylum working with the mentally ill. This to me shows how hypocritical the “leading thinkers” can be and is why we must rely on evidence and proof and not superstition.
Personally the theory is ridiculous and highly speculative. The mere notion that a person should be labeled as some kind of criminal due to the way they look can be twisted and weaponized towards a particular group. To say that a persons look and biological capabilities such as being more dexterous is simply untrue, does that mean that every male gymnast with a narrow face is a natural born cat burglar? No that would be ridiculous and shameful to say that about an entire group of highly skilled respectable athletes. How about a highly competent lawyer with large ears? Does that man who studied for years to become a defender of justice boil down to nothing more than a rapist due to the abnormal size of his ears? I do not believe that any part of his theory holds merit, the only part of the body that determines a criminal is his mind. If Lombroso were to take his background in science and apply it to the psychology of criminals and how their brains functioned maybe his theory would hold more value today.
Lombroso was first influenced by the positivistic in 1871. Prior to him being drawn to this theory, Lombroso had worked in lunatic asylums, and became interested in crime and criminals from studying Italian soldiers. He became curious as to what the differences was between a lunatic, criminal, and an average person. Lombroso conducted an experiment on a life long criminal and his finding led him to agree with the positivistic school. Lombroso believed that criminality was inherited. I don’t believe this to be valid one bit, I think that everyone is given the opportunity to not participate in criminal activity and that criminality is based on that person’s action. I do agree that some people have a harder time not participating in criminal activity due to their geographical location or family business, but to assume that criminality is inherited is not fair to the people that want to change their life and not follow what their family did before them.
People by nature tend to seek reasons to prove themselves more evolved than any other living being on the planet. This is because we have the need to look for a logical explanation to our actions, and therefore justify or judge them based on a universal idea. The classical and positivism try to implement an ideology about what crime is and how it should be eradicated. The classical school doesn’t seek the origins for crime since it states that the offender acts on the basis of his free will. Therefore, it presents the theory that criminals are created not by one, but by multiple factors ranging from their environment, history, family life and social conditions. On the contrary, the positivist theory investigates the causes of crime and seeks to readapt the criminal. This presents us with the idea that criminals are created on the basis of genetic changes that can be controlled or eradicated over time. That was what Cesare Lombroso wanted to convince us of with his scientific studies on crime and how these genetic changes affect our human behaviors.
However, what kind of society would we be if we started judging people based on Lombroso’s term “atavistic stigmata”. How could we say that one person is morally or biologically superior or inferior to another. Since our ideas of good and evil are based on social constructs implemented from organizations like the church, to maintain an order in human behavior. Although if we analyze our behavior thinking that we are evolved animals we would realize that all our actions come from learned behaviors. It could even be said that many of our behaviors are similar if not the same as those of other animals on the planet. So how can we judge each other by moral or biological ideas when we all have the ability to become criminals regardless of our genetics. This is because we act based on what we observed in society while growing up.
Lombroso formed the “born criminal theory” when he examined the back of a criminal’s skull and noticed an indentation similar to one you would find in an ape skull. He then formed his conclusion that you could identify a criminal by examining distinct traits such as large jaws, fingers, and noses. He compared his theory to Darwin’s theory of evolution and related the traits as signs of savagery and not being as evolved as others. I do not agree with this theory as I believe that criminal behavior is affected by your environment, upbringing, and some biological factors like genes. He also concluded that women who were criminals were more evil and ruthless than men. I don’t agree that gender necessarily plays a role in how evil or likely someone is to commit a serious crime, however from a biological standpoint I would guess that men are more likely to commit a more aggressive crime, due to their higher testosterone amount. In conclusion, there was not much of Lombroso’s theory that I found valid because his theory stated that criminals were predetermined by their physical traits rather than any environmental factors.
The positivist school and the classical school vary in several ways. One small, but still relevant, the difference is that the classical school of criminology was a product of the age of enlightenment, whereas the positivist school of criminology was born post-enlightenment. The main difference between these two criminological ideologies, however, is that the classical school of criminology assumes that individuals have free will and thus decide to commit crimes as a product of free will, while the positivist school of criminology assumes that individuals have no free will and are rather predisposed to committing crime either through biological or societal causes. Due to Lombroso’s experience within the field of medical science, he was familiar with the scientific method. Using this method, along with positivistic theories, he would develop the belief that crime is a biological trait and was inheritable. In hindsight, I see no validity in this approach, because the features he used to suspect individuals of criminality can be found in those who are not criminals, and while biological development can affect decision making, there is no inherent biological feature that makes one gravitate towards criminality. Lombroso’s theories on biological predisposition are still spoken about within the field of criminology today and illustrate that, while these theories have been seen as pseudoscience, they still undergo hypothesis. I do think these theories, while still considered, are less popular as a product of disagreement and further study on the subject. I think that the aspect of Lombroso’s theory that states that physical defects can be used to discover criminality is the least valid portion of his theory, whereas cultural training and civilization can affect criminal impulses are the most valid in my opinion.
The positivist school believes that criminals are born as criminals, people are not made into criminals. This means that anyone who has ever committed a crime is assumed to have criminal ideas naturally and they have always been that way. On the other hand, the classical school uses philosophy and rational thought to understand why people commit crimes. The classical school focuses more on the factors pushing one to break the law in order to understand their decisions. It is obvious that Lombroso was completely influenced by the positivist school being that he believed that one can detect a criminal by investigating his physical features, or stigmata. Physical features are natural and the features you are born with are the ones you have forever. This goes hand in hand with the idea of criminality being born rather than developed. There is absolutely no validity in this approach. As the article stated, about 50% of people with stigmatic features are non-criminal. His approach is similar to what a lot of policemen have planted in their mind, criminals look a certain way. Police have been known to racially profile people and/or assume something about them because of the way they dress. Not all police, but some like to judge people from physical appearance.
Lombroso believed that you can tell who is born a criminal based on their biological features such as skull size and nose. I think that Lombroso’s theory of physical features isn’t valid but I do believe that genes can play a role in one’s behavior. The characteristics that distinguish the Positivist School from the Classical School is that the Positivist School believes that crime is not a choice and it is based on your biology and the Classical School believes that crime is a choice and you are not born a criminal. These beliefs that criminal behavior is based on physical characteristics are not valid. In today’s society, if someone were to claim that criminal behavior is based on a physical feature such as one that is common among blacks or Asians for example, that would not be okay. That would be a form of discrimination because you would be judging a whole race and claiming they have criminal behavior when statistics through modern technology have proven that the crime rate is not consistent among physical features/race.
Lombroso’s theory revolves largely around the idea that people are “born as criminals” and that you can determine who is a born criminal by examining their physical characters, such as their skull shape. I think there is a small amount of merit in the idea that biology has a slight role in criminal behavior. For example, there might be a gene that makes some respond to certain situations with aggressive behavior and that could lead someone to commit a crime or maybe they have alcoholism run in the family and it puts them more at risk of underage drinking. What I think doesn’t have merit is the to extent to which he takes the biology viewpoint of crime. I have a very hard time believing that people are “born criminals” the way Lombroso puts it and I think this way of thinking, that people are naturally born as criminals, can lead to a very dangerous path of discrimination based purely off of physical characteristics. It’s also incredibly difficult to test how much of this is biological as this naturally leads into a nature vs nurture debate and it’s nearly impossible to control for environmental differences unless you engage in highly unethical practices.
What parts of Lombroso’s theory do you find least valid…more valid?
Lombroso was definitely on to something when he coined the notion of “born criminal.” I do believe certain people can be destined to a life of crime, but the term born criminal is just way too broad. Is someone born a criminal because they were born into poverty? Were they born into a hateful society? Were they born into a society where certain devious acts were deemed acceptable? Or were they born with a social disorder that made them less likely to fit into society? These are just a few factors out of hundreds that could lead us to believe someone will evolve into a criminal. You could literally take any trait of someone’s life and say that because of it they were destined to be a fiend. For example, we would blame a poor thief’s dubious acts on the fact that they were impoverished, and we could blame a wealthy suburban child’s dubious acts on the fact that he was handed everything and became selfish. We could attribute criminal acts to almost anything because criminals are born out of all different kinds of lifestyles. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Lombroso’s theory that criminals can be predicted by their physiological features is totally invalid to me. It’s like what came first, the chicken or the egg? Is a man a thief because he has wandering eyes, or does he have wandering eyes because he is a thief? Also, the fact that one distinct trait can lead to a certain criminal act doesn’t make sense, and if it did, there would be no detective work. A criminal could be born with a birth defect that doesn’t allow them to appropriately fit into society and there’s absolutely no telling how they will react; they could live a normal life, or become a murderous sociopath.
Lombroso was one of the first to use scientific methods to study crime. I believe that Lombroso had several different takes at methods for his theories, but I don’t necessarily think there valid. The theory I am talking about is Lombroso’s “Born Criminal” Theory. He believed that committing a crime could perhaps be inherited or hereditary. I disagree with this theory, although I think it is possible that unstable home environments can potentially influence delinquency. Becoming a criminal is not something in your genes or something passed down to you from a parent. With Lombroso’s studies, he was trying to make that seem like the case. Parents influence their children every day with the actions they take. It is not unlikely for a delinquent to learn criminal behavior from a troubled parent. I’m not saying Lombroso wasn’t a bright or intelligent person, but I honestly think this theory is invalid.
What parts of Lombroso’s theory do you find least valid…more valid?
Cesare Lombroso was a criminologist unlike ones we’ve talked about previously. Why? Well, he had a scientific background which allowed him to take his medical background and criminologist background and create a theory about born criminals. Lombroso explained that physical defects could point out a criminal before any actions. Although his theory had a scientific background, it was soon noticeable that even non-criminals showed the same birth defects. He also classified each criminal with their own set of defects, which further enlightened his theory. Personally, some of the defects listed by Lombroso pertain to myself, and I am indeed not a criminal. For example, Lombroso stated that rapists have bigger “jug ears” and that criminals in general have wandering eyes. My ears are large, maybe not exactly “jug shaped” but what defines a jug shaped ear? Also, people with anxiety or depression can also have wandering eyes and as far as I know anxiety and depression are not crimes.
What parts of Lombroso’s theory do you find least valid…more valid?
Lombroso’s theory of being born a criminal is least valid to me. He determined that there was specific characteristics that made someone prone to be a criminal such as someone’s ear size, forehead slope, an asymmetrical face, straightened teeth, and other physical traits. He also believed that someone’s mental illness can be determined by art, and this also classified someone to be criminal.
However he made an assumption that violent crimes such as rape and murder, were conducted by individuals that have certain characteristics. Some of these characteristics include no remorse, less susceptible to pain, vain, impulsiveness, and had great cruelty. He made the early distinctions of a psychopath, sociopath, and narcistic tendencies. These characteristics do describe versions of serial killers and people who commit violent acts.
The characteristics that distinguish the Positivist school from the Classical school regarding criminal thought is that the positive school has this perspective that individuals have no free will to control their behavior.They base criminal behavior on scientific criminological testing and theorizing. An example of two characteristics would be craniometry which is the study that emphasized the belief that the size of the brain or skull reflected superiority or inferiority, with larger brains and skulls being considered superior, and phrenology which is the science of determining human dispositions based on distinctions. Classical school theories of crime emphasis on free-will and rational decision making. Their focus is on the human ability to choose one’s own behavior and destiny.
Positivist theories influenced Lombroso because he believed the criminal behavior is inherited and that it could be found by the way people look. He had no intention on believing in any other way because of the genes past down from family members. I do see a lot of validity in his response but however do not agree with it. Yes to an extent I could say it is inherited. But sometimes I do believe sometimes when a person is always surrounded around the bad things sometimes that is only the option. When a person is forced into the lifestyle sometimes that is there only choice. Kids at young ages could potentially be killed or beaten severely due to no compliance of following in the family footsteps.
There are many different characteristic that differentiate between the Classical School and the postivist school regarding criminology. Firstly, the positivist school uses certain techniques to study crime and criminals and also mirrors in on what factors make people want to do crime. The classical school is different and it says people have free will in making their decisions, and punishment is a deterrant for crime. There are many things that are different between the two. In the postivist school, there is no talking about people free will and them making their own decisions, they assume that they are doing this because of factors that push them to do it. Compared to classical school, they think that people do it for a reason and there is not a thing pushing them to do it, they also think punishment helps bring crime down. Classical school bases their principles off of punishment, relying on it bring down crime and helping to deter people from commiting crime, and that people are rational and choose to do it because they want to do it. Classical theory helps out the most with crime control. The Positivist school says that basically the criminal need to look like they would fit the crime and look like a criminal. They do not hold them accountable if they do not fit the role.
Positivistic theories influence Lombroso to the point that he used this theory to come up with a lot of his conclusions. When he did a post-mortem he was doing this based of the theory that he needed to have knowledge and do research in order to figure out if there was any correlation between personal attributes and whether or not they would be a criminal. He also did multiple other post-mortems on other deceased criminals to see if the indentation at the back of the skull was in other criminals as well. He found that a few of them had this same feature. From his research he concluded that some were born with the “propensity to offend and were also savage throwbacks to early man”. I do not see any validity in his approach because when he examined other subjects not all of them had the same indent in the back of their skulls. This means that there is no certain way of telling if someone had a higher chance to offend when they were born as to someone committing a random crime.
The classical school of theory was based more on criminal experiences rather than theory and was focused more on events that happened and evidence that was there. The positivism school of theory is based more on scientific evidence rather than actual criminal events or experiences. Positivistic theory inspired Lombroso as it was focused more on scientific theories and was very close to medical science which he was very familiar with. There is some validity as is focused on why the human mind can cause people to commit crime and that is focused in criminology. Lombroso’s theories would believe that people are born criminals that criminal behavior is passed down through genes. These theories would tend to be less popular as it goes against what we currently know about genetics. I find Lombroso’s theory that if someone looks a certain way that could cause crime. I do find however, that a human mind can be the reason a crime is committed.
The classical school regarding criminological thought was focused on free will. On the other hand, the positivist school regarding criminological thought was focused on factual information and investigation as opposed to intuitive knowledge. Lombroso was one of the people in history to use scientific methods to study crime and he also was trained in medical science. The positivistic theories is a philosophical theory based on the idea that positive knowledge might be achieved through a process of investigation, interpreted through logic and reason. Positivism operates according to general laws and rejects knowledge on metaphysics and theology. The positivistic theories influenced Lombroso because of these things. I do see some validity in the approach because of the fact that Lombroso used scientific methods to study crime. On the other hand, I do not see validity in his theories about being able to pinpoint physical features that make someone a criminal. His theory of the “born criminal” is not valid because he believed that criminality was inherited and that they can be identified by physical defects. The problem is, what he found to be defects on criminals, also turned out to be defects on noncriminals. Overall, his method of trying to use scientific methods to figure out criminal behavior seems valid, but his overall theories are not very valid. Looking a research today, his theories on being able to tell if someone is a criminal by how they look is not valid anymore.
The biggest difference and distinguishing factor between the Positive School and the Classical School is their views on free will and how that plays into the reasons why people commit crime. The Classical School was a product of the Enlightenment where individual free will and rational decision making were the focal point. During this era, the crimes a person committed were often blamed on their decision and motivation to commit the crime. It was a very philosophical standpoint in comparison to the Positive School that looked to concrete, empirical evidence for answers. While both schools of criminology depend on determinism for their theories, determinism in the Positive School assumes that human beings do not decide how they will act by rationally thinking through the consequences and benefits. Instead, they look to factors outside of free will (biology, psychology, sociology, etc.) to explain human behavior and our decisions to engage in crime.
Looking at what makes a difference between classical and positivist school for criminological thought has brought to light what each was designed to do. Both schools were designed to create approaches that would stop any sort of deviant behavior that was dangerous to society. Under the classical theory it was designed to appease the majority of society with the law making instead of deciding for the society. When positivist school was introduced they used scientific techniques to explain the crime under strict control. Garofalo who was also a theorist in this time and stated that criminals are a virus thus leading to the next step in this process where he believed they should be locked up and to start the removal of criminals. When looking at the two schools next to each other you see that the classical thought was that crime was a choice making the punishment a something the criminals have to accept for their wrong doings. Unfortunately positivist thought that crime was caused by disease so anyone who would commit a crime would have to be treated for their illness. Since there were different crimes committed and different criminals then there had to be different ways of treatment under the positivist school.
There are many characteristics that distinguish the Positivist School from the Classical School regarding criminological thought. Positivist School is a perspective that assumes that individuals have no free will to control their behavior. Whereas the Classical School is a model of crime that assumes that crime occurs after a rational individual mentally weighs the potential consequences of a crime and then makes a decision about whether to do it or not. Positivist School examines early formulations of scientific criminological testing and theorizing. Classical School is suited to analyse what type of mental calculations a person makes before committing a crime. There were parts of Lombroso’s theory that I found least valid. The thing I found least valid is when he talked about physical appearance. I do not believe someone having big ears makes them a person that is most likely to commit crimes. And I do not believe criminality is inherited the way Lombroso believed.
The Positivist School focused on evidence backed by empirical data. The Classical School focused on rational thought and choice. Lombroso chose the Positivist method by assuming that criminals could be distinguished by their phenotype. He used his personal experiences to form a theory about all of humanity, which is why phrenology is not a credible science. As a society I believe we tend to lean towards information that has been supported by data, but that isn’t completely true. Lombroso’s theory may have led some to believe that certain features indicate a criminal, which can be dangerous if a factor of criminality is race. However, I do agree with most of his base points, such as the brain ruling separate parts of the body.
The Positivist School was based off scientific evidence providing answers to why certain people commit crime. It basically held the idea that criminality in a person is hereditary and they are born with it, rather than it being a learned trait. We see these characteristics being played out in Cesare Lombroso’s theory for criminal behavior. He believed criminals were born as criminals due to certain features of their skulls found in postmortem. He insinuated that criminals were less evolved and had a desire for evil, that they had “atavistic stigmata” or criminal characteristics. I find this theory to be invalid and should just be looked at to show the ridiculousness of some people and how they cannot accept they are wrong. Just because you are the offspring of a drug dealer does not mean you will grow up to be a drug dealer. The neighborhood you grow up in as well as the consequences that come upon you and your family from the drug dealing provides more evidence to me for why someone would start down a similar path.
Lombroso was different, his thoughts were like something we have never seen before. He was also one of the first people to use scientific methods to study crime. I think he created several valid arguments with those methods but there was one I would say is the opposite. Lombroso had a theory that committing a crime can be inherited or hereditary or a “Born Criminal” as he would say. I personally think this is false, but I do believe that some unstable families can influence youth to become delinquent. Like they say when you are younger “follow in your parent’s footsteps” well in this situation that isn’t always a good thing. With that being said it is safe to say that being a criminal isn’t in your genes or something that was passed down to you. On the other hand, It can be strongly influenced based on the life you are given. Lombroso had many intelligent theories but I would say this was a little far from accurate.
Lombroso had a different way of thinking. To me not all of his explanations were valid, the least valid one was that committing a crime can be inherited. I think this is invalid because there are thousands of cases where someones parents made catastrophic decisions and their children try to live their lives as normally as possible despite the heat their families brought them before the child became a topic. I do in fact believe you can tell if someones committed a terrible crime by their expressions. Someone that isn’t terribly insane cannot commit a murder and remain the same
The positivist school focused around investigation and factual information. The classical school focused on rational decision making and the emphasis on free will. Lombroso was influenced by the positivist theory by believing that one could determine someone is criminal based on how they look. I believe this approach on determining who is criminal is an incorrect approach. There were many people back in this time period that fit the certain standards of a criminal, but never committed a crime in their life. There were also many people who did commit crimes but did not match this outline of a criminal. His theories on criminality plays a large role in proving that modern biological perspectives of crime are necessary, because his theories were not enough. Lombrosos theories led to the focus on phrenology, which is the discovery of the development of particular cerebral organs being responsible for different types of character traits.
Classical school theory is all about why people commit crime. It is specifically said in the book that it is about individuals’ rational thoughts behind committing a crime. Positivist is all about investigation and science. Therefore, the main difference is that classical school is about opinions and rational choices whereas positivist is all about facts from science. Positivist influenced Lombroso because he believed that you can tell if someone is a criminal by their body features such as your nose, face, eyes, and ears. I don’t see any validity in this because you simply can’t figure out if someone is a criminal or if they will commit a crime just by how they look. I feel that it is about their mental health, not how they look. I think that his theories tell us that biological appearances could have something to do with modern biological perspectives but realistically they do not at all. Yes, I do believe that causes the theories to be less popular. The parts that I found least valid was how he tried to say that you can tell who a criminal is just by their appearance. I didn’t really find anything valid because reading this made it seem that he was basing a lot of it on stereotypes even though it was about science and investigation.
So far, positivist and classical theories have been covered. Classical theory mainly concerns rational thought and individual choices. Moving to the influencing of Lombroso, he was a scientist. Scientists are seen as very intelligent and credible, just as all the evidence and testing seemed to prove Lombroso’s work. His theories brought biology into play with factors such as defects or genetics. Moreover, finding no pattern through physical appearance leaves Lombroso with no pattern to work with. This statement leaves an audience with the original thought of “who is committing crimes and why”. Lastly, one thing I can point out that lacks validity within this theory is physical appearance. If someone has larger shaped ears or tattoos, this obviously does not make that subject a criminal.
Lombroso used scientific observation during his study as a criminal anthropologist as he tried to pinpoint the physical differences between criminals and non-criminals. He investigated the differences in shapes of ears, length of fingers, jaw sizes, slope of foreheads, chin sizes and nose shapes. During an post mortem investigation, he found an indentation at the back of the skull which resembled what was found in ape skulls. These types of studies led Lombroso to conclude that criminals had certain features that identified them as “born criminals” in his work Criminal Man in 1876. I believe his work has no validity in modern times and perpetuates negative stereotypes but I would be interested in visiting his museum in Italy, if given the chance. He is the father of modern criminology, and studying him can show us how criminology has developed and evolved over the years.
Lombroso’s idea of crime being heredity isn’t necessarily true in our present society. However, it is understood why he started with looking at the physical features of criminals to see what they all have in common. Studying the skulls of the criminals made more sense at the time because it was more of a general question when this topic was being studied. “Why do people commit crimes?” In the earlier centuries, humans were less developed so criminals weren’t the only humans who had very similar physical features as the documented “savages” that were around back then. Lombroso also believed that women were less likely to commit crime, and if they did then it wouldn’t be as brutal/severe. He also noted that any women that committed a crime usally had black hair and a smaller skull than usual. This information makes me wonder why they all tend to have those features in common. In fact, those are very odd features to have in common being that the topic is related to crime. What does the color of their hair and the size of their skull have to do with anything. I could understand why scientists would like at the brain to try and figure out why people commit crimes, but I personally think that looking at physical features will not create any answers.
From this article I think there’s a lot to think about and take away . I learned that positivism is a philosophical theory . Also, Positivism holds a valid knowledge. Basically that positivism rejects intuitive knowledge. I think that Lombroso’s theory is different . I don’t really agree with his theory . He’s basically saying. That if you act and look like a criminal you are . I disagree with this because you shouldn’t just judge some base of that , definitely If you don’t know their personality. If that’s the case than many people would be criminal without commenting the crimes . I learned many different perspectives base of this article I think that’s pretty cool .
Lombroso used scientific observation during his study as a criminal anthropologist. He was trying to pinpoint the physical differences between criminals and non-criminals. He investigated the differences in the shape of ears, length of fingers, jaw size, slope of forehead, chin size and nose shape. During one of his postmortem investigations, he found an indentation at the back of the skull of a criminal which resembled what was found in the back of ape skulls. These studies led Lombroso to conclude that criminal had features that identified them and they were born criminals. I personally believe his work has no validity in modern times and perpetuates negative stereotypes, although his use of science and investigation is interesting. I would love to check out his museum in Italy if I ever get the chance.
Lombroso’s original theory had a few points that stuck out to me as being invalid. I do not believe that criminals have certain physical attributes. Anyone and everyone can commit a crime. As a society I believe it is dangerous to assume that due to the fact a person has physical features that fit those of a “criminal”, they should be treated as such. People do not get to decide what shape their nose, eyes, length of fingers, or ears are. If we begin to assume that people with these features are criminals, we will be placing a bad reputation on many people who are completely innocent. As we already have had a lot of people wrongfully convicted due to their physical attributes, if we followed Lombroso’s theory it would lead to even more wrongful convictions. Lombroso’s use of science to understand crime stood out to be as being his most valid point of his theory.
I find most of his points to be invalid because i don’t believe in stereotypes for the simple reason that anybody can end up committing any crime when presented with a life-death situation. But on the other hand some of his points were very interesting because of the stigmata that he believed in. I don’t agree that physical features can determine whether someone is “savage” or not because some of the most innocent looking people commit crimes. His research on criminals is very intriguing because his findings seem to be very unique.
I find most of his points to be invalid because i don’t believe in stereotypes for the simple reason that anybody can end up committing any crime when presented with a life-death situation. But on the other hand some of his points were very interesting because of the stigmata that he believed in. I don’t agree that physical features can determine whether someone is “savage” or not because some of the most innocent looking people commit crimes
After reading this article i think that the positivist school was based on investigation and it does not use intuitive knowledge. The classical school is based on rational thoughts of the individual person. The positivistic theories help influence Lombroso because he believed that the criminal law was inherited and it would be found the way that people looked. Even though this is all of what he believed , we know now that just the way someone looks does not technically mean that they will partake in any sort of crime or criminal behavior. Not only did he just have his thoughts on criminal behavior but he also believed that if you look and act like a criminal then you are one , and you will be treated like that too. There was no way in changing his thoughts on that discussion. I think his theory is very interesting to think about because nowadays in this day and age we are taught in todays society to not judge anyone on their appearances. There are also many people that even back then committed crimes and did not meet the appearance criteria of a criminal. I believe that Lombroso’s theories definitely tell us that these modern biological perspectives on any type of crime. His theories of “being born criminal” may even show to come true in some ways but not the exact way certain people expect it too , and not how Lombroso’s theory was stated. Physical appearance has little to no correlation on someones criminal record. It seems that Lombroso relied on stereotypes to determine whether or not someone is a criminal which is definitely incorrect. In my final opinion i think it is easily proven that , today in society you do not need these features and looks to become a criminal , having these features does not make you an instant criminal.
Positivism is based on the idea that positive knowledge might be achieved through a process of investigations. Whereas classical school is more of the rational choice theory aspect of criminology. Positivistic Theory influenced Lombroso by solidifying that you could pick a criminal out based on appearance. Lombroso referred to the term stigmata when talking about “criminal characteristics” when talking about the corpses of violent criminals. I don’t see any validity in his approach because even though some people may fit these “criminal characteristics” not every single criminal will fit this profile. Lombroso’s theory can tell us about modern biological perspectives on crime and how they are very important when trying to prove if any of his subjects were “born criminal”. I think that basing who is criminal based on their appearance is absolute invalid. Some of the criminals that he investigated may fit the profile, but it is a theory that won’t be used in modern day perspectives on crime. Criminals don’t all look the same and that’s why this theory is completely invalid.
The Positivist Schools and Classical Schools views on criminological thought are very different in regards to this topic. The Positivist Schools theory is based on facts while The Classical Schools theory however, is based on beliefs and assumptions. Regarding the justice system and criminology the Positivist theory is the most credible way of determining crime and solely what our class is based around. Lombroso thought you could determine who is a criminal based on their appearance(physical defects) and that it was inherited. Living in the modern day we can obviously see how this way of thinking is faulty and completely incorrect. This theory has no validity, everyday we see “normal people” that you would never imagine committing a crime going to jail. Physical deformities cannot be what “makes” a criminal there’s a mental aspect to this problem.Lombroso’s theories tells us how needed and necessary modern biological perspectives on crime are to this system. Lombroso’s theories helps us understand where the modern biological perspectives on crime came from and almost originated. Lombroso’s theories, though incorrect, helped other theories to be founded and questioned. I do not however feel that the founding of these new theories have made Lombroso’s theories less popular. Although it is a completely invalid way of judging/convicting crime a lot of people still think this way and believe in the logistics of the theory. I disagree with more of Lombroso’s theories than agree with them, but I can see eye to eye on some points. I do beilive that some people are just wired that way and are inherently evil but I do not agree with the basis of his work.
Cesare Lombroso was an Italian medical scientist who was thought to be the Father of Modern Criminology, he was influenced by the Positivist school that human behavior is determined by a person’s physical attributes. By using the Scientific Theory, he evaluated criminal behavior by comparing lunatics and criminals to “normal individuals”. The first criminal that participated in his experiment was Giuseppe Villella. Lombroso observed that Villella showed indentations in the back of his skull which is also found in apes. After more post-mortem experiments, he went on to find some more criminals who also had these attributes. Overall, I think this theory is not accurate due to the fact that our physical attributes do not portray our personality or behavior. It is easily proven that at least, today in society, you do not need these features to be a criminal or in retrospect, having these features does not make you a criminal.
In this post, we learn about positivism which is a major difference compared to the classical theory of criminology we learned about in the article from last week. Positivism is one of the most important terms pertaining to this class. Positivism eliminates the thought process and opinions that we acquire from personal experiences. It is based on knowledge gained from investigation and facts that have been proven by professionals. We know that this information is valid and not just an opinion made by someone that does not have data and facts to back it up. It was formulated in the early 19th century and was a stepping stone for law making. Avery important criminology activist named Cesare Lombroso was very intrigued by positivism as he incorporated it into his frequent use of the scientific method. He also studied the human body and believed that the size of a human’s organs determined how powerful someone was. Him and many other criminologists proved that biology is directly correlated to criminality.
Classical school is a questionable way of thinking because it is based off of beliefs. Crime is determined by facts. Positivist school uses facts and only facts, which makes this a much more credible way of going about crime with criminals. Lombroso believed that someone’s appearance could tell you whether or not that specific person was a criminal or not. This way of thinking is obviously incorrect because any person in today’s society can have different circumstances when it comes to a criminal record. Someone who is a CEO of a huge company could be put in jail for a long time because of fraud, for example, l while someone on the side of the road dressed in rags could be someone who was laid off from a job for that same company working an honest living with absolutely no criminal record whatsoever. Physical appearance has little to no correlation on someone’s criminal record. It seems Lombroso relied on stereotypes to determine whether or not someone is a criminal which is absolutely incorrect. Criminals should not be labeled based on their appearance ever, but on the facts specifically involved with a crime. Lombroso’s idea was incorrect because of this, and in turn his beliefs are not followed in modern day by the court and justice system.
The Positivist School and Classical School are very different when discussing criminological thought and specifically how one “becomes a criminal”. The Positivist School is solely based on and focused around investigation and factual information. The Classical School, however, focused on rational decision making, and their emphasis on “free will”. Positivist theory influenced Lombroso by making him believe you could determine who is a criminal based on their appearance, and that it can be proven with past evidence of criminals. I see absolutely no validity in this approach, solely due to the fact that there are so many people in this world,even back in the time of the enlightenment, that fit this “guidelines of a criminal”, but have never committed a crime. There are also many people, even back then, that committed crimes and did not meet the appearance criteria of a criminal. Lombroso’s theories definitely can tell us that these modern biological perspectives on crime are necessary, as his theories were not enough to prove who is criminal. His theories of “being born criminal” may show to come true in some, but not the exact way Lombroso’s theory stated. Biologists and criminologists are starting to theorize that criminals may be born with committing crime in their genetics, but in their brain compared to their appearance. I do not believe Lombroso’s theories do not cause these modern biological theories to be less popular for I believe his theories led to the focus of phrenology, which was the discovery of of the development of particular cerebral organs being responsible for different types of character traits. I find some parts of Lombroso’s theory, but also see some of the parts as not valid at all. I agree with the theory that some people are genetically born criminal. However, I do not agree that everyone is born criminal, and they are not genetically born criminal with their appearances. I agree with the idea of phrenology, where the genetics in someone’s brain can be the cause of some crimes committed.
The positivist school is mainly by the book but the classical school partakes in being strictly about beliefs. The positivist theory influenced Lambroso’s because he believed that the criminal behavior was inherited and you could tell by the way they look. He did not bother to see where you came from, if you came from a wealthy family or a good background. He believed that if you look and act like a criminal them you are one and there was no changing his mind about that. I think his theory is very interesting to think about because we are taught in today’s society to not judge someone by their appearance. Plus I would like the thrill in not ever knowing who it was and finding certain clues that lead you to believe what you think is true. When people nowadays see people in public that dress differently or something we often say “ it looks like they are on drugs” or something along those lines. So, I would disagree with Lambroso’s theories because he is judging that persons appearance on something that could possibly ruin their life because they were wrongfully convicted. That is why his theory is not used in today’s society because the world has changed so much.
Positivist School is mainly about the facts, but Classical School is strictly about beliefs. Lambroso said that you can determine whether a person is a criminal or not by the way they act and by their physical appearance. Lambroso believed that it did not matter whether you were a good person or not or whether you came from a good family or not, he believed that if you had that physical appearance or acted a certain way, then you were a criminal. Some people believe that a mental disorder does have an influence on committing a crime, but I am not one of those people. If a person commits a crime, then that person should not be allowed to say, “Oh my mental illness had an influence on my decision.” or “I was depressed and that is why I committed this crime.” and get away with no punishment (jail time) for the crime that person committed. Just from walking around the city or walking around your town, you can hear people say “Oh he looks like he does drugs or something” just by the way the person looks, this is called criminal tendencies. I certainly disagree with Lambroso when he says that physical appearance makes someone a criminal. Lambroso is certainly stereotyping people. Nowadays, some people that are arrested for pursing a crime, it someone you least expect to be a criminal. That is why Lambroso’s theory of physical appearance, does not apply in today’s age and time. The criminal justice system is completely different in some aspects then is was back in that time.
I think it is completely barbaric that Cesare Lombroso believed that people were born criminals. He took a small amount of men and estimated their criminal activity to their body defects. Lombroso believed that people could inherit criminal behavior and so if you had the defects then he labeled you as a savage. With this I am relating it to the “dark figure of crime” because they spoke of people like they were animals or savages. It’s very interesting how such old theories still play a huge role in society today even though we know they are wrong. The most interesting thing I think about Lombroso is how he also studied women and crime. Most of society didn’t like to blame women for crime in the early years but he branched out past that stereotype. However that is the only interesting thing when it comes to him studying women because he then goes on to talk about specific details women have such as dark hair and smaller skulls. He used these specific details of women and said these are the women who will commit crimes. I understand it is such an old way of thinking but it’s annoying because he was so uneducated. It’s actually kind of funny, I guess we have to start somewhere. However, I believe it is these stereotypes that philosophers had that caused such oppressive and corruptive situations like school to prison pipeline, the dark figure of crime, war on drugs, etc. It is extremely frustrating that no matter how many years pass society is still so uneducated on how toxic these things have made our communities. It makes me wonder will we ever break from such toxicity… will we ever learn?
The Classical School and the Positivist School are distinctively different within criminological thought. The Positivist School is based off of facts and the truth, whereas the Classical School is the opposite of that. Positivist theories influenced Lambroso because of the way he evaluated people and what he believed. Lambroso believed you could determine characteristics about people that could possibly make them a criminal or not a criminal. It didn’t matter if you were a good or bad person, as long as you had those certain characteristics. There are some things I agree and disagree with about his approach. I believe that there is a mental connection with criminal tendencies, but I disagree criminal tendencies come from physical characteristics. People sometimes say “that guy looks like a pedophile” making physical characteristics as a connection to criminal tendencies, but I do not believe physical characteristics have anything to do with being a criminal. I feel as if Lombroso is basing his theory off of the way people look and giving criminals certain physical characteristics while people who are not criminals could have the same characteristics. The theory probably loses popularity due to this. Nowadays criminals have a wide variety of physical and mental characteristics, and some people you would least expect to be a criminal, is a criminal.
The Positivist School is based on investigation and it does not use intuitive knowledge. On the other hand, the Classical School, is based on rational thoughts of the individual person. The positivistic theories influence Lombroso because he believed the criminal behavior is inherited and that it could be found by the way people look. Even though this is what he believed, we know now that the way someone looks does not technically mean that they will partake in criminal behavior. I thought Lombroso’s theory was interesting but I feel like his theory would be too easy. I think this because I feel like figuring out whether or not someone is going to partake in criminal behavior is a lot more complex than looking at defects of a person’s body. There is a lot more to criminal behavior than what Lombroso was trying to prove. Even though Lombroso’s theories may seem like an unlikely answer, it does show that the modern biological perspective on crime is a biology reason. Phrenology started in the mid 19th century and that got people to think about the brain. This is important because the brain is an organ where people think. Their actions come from what their brain tells them to do and being a criminal might have something to do with a genetic defect in the brain. Even with that, being a criminal depends on the “historical, social and cultural social forces” as stated in the article. I think that caused these theories to be more popular because it gets people interested in the fact that being a criminal could be based on the brain. I find the theory that the way a person looks means that they are a criminal is less valid because everyone is different. The way someone looks does not have an influence on if someone will be a criminal.
Reading this article was very informative to me. This is very useful to me because I do want to be a Detective. So from reading this I was able to see how a criminal would commit a crime and the reason for committing the crime.
The Positivist school relies on gathered data and positive facts from investigations compared to the classical school way of regarding criminological thoughts. The positivistic theories influenced Lombroso by making him believe criminals are born and that we can tell who criminals are by their physical characteristics like cheekbones and lines in the palm of a person. But deciding whether a person is a criminal or not based on their physical appearance is crazy and not at all ethical. A criminal isn’t a criminal because they have a similar shaped skull to a previous criminal, a criminal is a criminal because they’ve committed a crime. According to Lombroso’s theories criminality can be inherited and influences the way we think about modern biological crimes. I don’t think any part of Lombroso’s “theory” is valid.
This was an interesting read. It gave insight into the minds of early criminologists that proposed radical ideas on who might commit a crime. Such as a born criminal; a theory that punishes a person based on how they appear, suggesting that an individual might commit a crime if they look, talk, act or dress a certain way. These assortment of theories that rely on stereotypes are now long debunked -through proper scientific process and research. More accurate factors that could determine criminal intent are: environmental contribution from family, mental illness, education or criminal priors.
Positivism describes the use of positive knowledge in order to understand natural phenomena, whereas the Classical School is not as reliant on facts. The Positivist School is more philosophical and presents the idea that this positive knowledge can be achieved through investigation to earn a greater understanding. Cesare Lombroso is said to be the father of modern criminology, due to his work Criminal Man in 1876. He tried to look for differences between lunatics, criminals, and normal individuals, which he did so during his time as an employee at lunatic asylums. One of his studies was done on a criminal named Giuseppe Villella, whom he discovered had an indentation at the back of his skull during a post-mortem. Because of this finding, Lombroso concluded that some people are born with the inherent ability or predisposition to become a criminal, due to their anatomical nature. In short, Cesare Lombroso’s main belief was that criminality was inherited and could be identified through physical characteristics, which he deemed “defects”. Lombroso also concluded that those he perceived as “less evolved” were more likely to act on criminal impulses, since they were not cultured or trained societally like others who were more evolved. A subsequent flaw found in his research was that his criminal “stigmatas” were also found in the noncriminal population at about the same rate as the criminal population, so he was forced to rethink and generalize his predisposition theories. Phrenology was soon born at a later time period in succession to Lombroso’s studies, which led to the further belief that criminality was innate and irreversible. Modern theorists now suggest that some criminality tendencies can be genetically linked and inherited, but most of it is learned and trained through one’s upbringing and social experience. Using physical aspects as a means to determine one’s potential to become a criminal is not entirely accurate or a fair assessment, but it does pose interesting questions as to whether or not criminal intent and action can be bred and inescapable.
Positivist School is different from Classical School because it is based on pure facts achieved from the senses. All of the evidence is from verified data. Knowledge is gained through investigation. Classical School is the opposite. Crime is seen as not a choice in Positivist School while it is seen as a choice in Classical School. Lombroso used scientific methods to study crime much like positivistic theories preach. I see a lot of validity in this approach because I believe there must be scientific reasons to why certain people have certain traits leading them to be criminals. Lombroso’s theories tell us that there are many scientists and people who believe that there are biological reasons why criminals commit crimes. I believe that these theories are still very much popular. I find Lombroso’s overall approach to crime having some type of biological approach as valid. I see his approach of criminals having certain physical traits as less valid.
The Positivist school and the established school are distinctive in the criminological idea on the grounds that the positivist school depends on generally realities and truth where the traditional school isn’t. Positivistic speculations affected Lombroso in light of his enthusiasm for various things and the way he took a gander at individuals. He trusted that specific individuals (great or awful) had certain qualities that would stand out to perhaps make them a criminal or not a criminal. In spite of the fact that in some ways I do concur with this I don’t really think the activities of a criminal depend on their looks. I don’t see much legitimacy in his approach.
Lombroso’s hypotheses on present-day organic points of view on wrongdoing are a bit of befuddling to me. I feel as if he bases his hypotheses off of the way individuals look and I don’t believe that is a decent method to base things off of. I do think the way he takes a gander at things makes his speculations be less famous in light of the fact that I don’t figure you should base what somebody might do off of just their looks. Activities can become possibly the most important factor also. Personally, I think his hypothesis is alright. In any case, I don’t generally concur with any of it. Indeed, I see now and again somebody can look crude perhaps by what they look like or what they are wearing, however, I can perceive how that can be hostile also. Because you are not spruced up and grinning wherever you go does not make you a criminal. Because you didn’t get spruced up and chose to wear workout pants does not make you crude. I extremely simply don’t concur with his hypothesis.
Lombroso’s theory was a great way to go about looking for criminals. He makes a point of the criminal trait is inherited. I wouldn’t say it was inherited but more of it is taught to some children from those who are raising them, or taught as the norm from their surrounding. Some children grow up without two parents due to one being in prison or maybe one being deceased due to criminal violence. That child is young and if visiting someone at prison is all he or she knows then maybe to them that’s where they belong. If people go around shooting other people, maybe to them it’d be normal for he or she to do the same. My cousins follow in their father’s footsteps. Two of my uncles have been in and out of jail since they were teenagers. Now both of their kids are in jail with them because they did the same things their fathers did. To me it’s not the trait of a criminal that gets inherited but the wrongs of others that a person comes to learn as okay or normal.
Positivist theory relies on information gathered by the senses and the world around the investigator to come to conclusions based on concrete data. As such, Lombroso’s approach to determining the root of criminal behavior fell within appropriate positivist thinking, although the conclusions he drew from his research were not supported by the data he had. By measuring the skull of a criminal and noticing a deformity, he jumped to the conclusion that biological maladaptations were the result of and physical visual evidence of criminal deviancy. Although this approach shunned the alternate theological or psychological explanations that might have held weight during that time period, Lombroso’s use of the positivist theory fell short by using such a small sample size before deciding that skull deformities caused criminal behavior and ignoring any explanation that held nurture over nature. The modern idea that criminality may be genetically predisposed and can be detected based on physical measurements parallels Lombroso’s conclusions and are rife with the same moral dilemmas and questionable science. Preemptive justice based on biology gives off a sort of “Minority Report” vibe, with law enforcement treating individuals with biological predispositions with suspicion and incarcerating them without the person having even yet commiting a crime. The fact that Lombroso’s theories were shown to be less than concrete may prevent some people from coming to the same conclusions that he did in modern research, but the tempting idea of being able to predict who will be a criminal and remove any environmental or social factors from criminal motivations, placing the blame solely on genetic or biological factors such as sex, race, mental disabilities, ect. will likely result in a decent amount of criminologists at least pursing further research into the physical indicators of a criminal.
Positivism is different in that it is based off of the idea that positive knowledge is achieved through investigation. Lombroso’s theories stated that a criminal can be identified by their looks, and their looks alone. He believe that criminality was inherited and certain birth defects meant automatically that they were a potential criminal. I believe that this is not valid because facial features do not relate to criminality. Many people share similar facial features but that doesn’t mean they are all criminals. There are many other factors involved and it cannot be solely based off of the fact of facial features. You cannot say that every person with bulging eyes is a criminal, because facial features are not related to what happens in the brain.
Positivism differs from the classical school in the sense that positivism is based off positive knowledge. This can be achieved through investigation. Lombroso believed that criminals could be identified through their physical features. The characteristics of a person could determine whether or not they were going to commit a crime. He believed that structure of the skull could tell you what intellectual skills a criminal had. I think this theory is put into question. I don’t think people are born criminal or that their physical features determine this. I think criminality has more to do with the psychological than it does the physical aspects of a person.
The Classical School states that crime is committed through free will. They believe people know the difference between right and wrong and people should be punished swiftly with a punishment proportional to the crime or crimes committed. The Positivist school used scientific evidence for conviction and they saw human behavior as a central for for criminology. All people are different in ways such as where they grew up, how their brain is wired and their physique. Lombroso believed he could determine who was likely to commit a crime and who was not likely to just by looking at their physical characteristics. I feel like there is very little validity in this approach. It’s an interesting theory, but just because someone looks a certain way does not mean they are going to commit a crime. Modern criminology does not exactly focus on just physical characteristics but they do use certain positivist theories, such as examining environments people grow up in and understanding how that could lead to more crime. I believe that his theory of inheriting crime or being born into it is valid, but basing a criminal purely off their physical appearance is not very valid.
This was a very interesting read, what struck me the most about Lambroso’s theory was the anatomy of a criminal. More specifically, “ insensibility to pain, extremely acute sight, tattooing, excessive idleness, love of orgies and the irresistible craving for evil for its own sake, the desire not only to extinguish life in the victim, but to mutilate the corpse, tear its flesh, and drink its blood” this sounds a lot like myself, the typical college student. With such outlandish and judgemental theories I could only imagine how closed minded this man could be to life’s simple pleasures, such as indulging in orgies and other harmless “sins”. Lambroso without a doubt had a wild imagination coupled by a superiority complex that cold stretch for miles. He also seemed like the type of man who was not very receptive to sarcasm, and his theory would have thrived during the time of mass hysteria that was the salem witch hunt. I say that because both theories of good and evil were made up and complete nonsense.
Cesare Lombroso believed that basically we could tell a criminal from a normal law following citizen by physical features on the person. So with women he believed that they were generally smaller with a larger jaw and a small skull. Also, he states that we can tell by there forehead, finger tips, and also the lengths of an individuals ear. With this information, I do not feel that it is valid that you can determine whether a person is a criminal or not based on a feature they have. Whether they are criminals or not, they had the feature before and after they might have committed a crime. If crime had to have a “look” it would be how the individual carries themselves in the real world, maybe how they dress or speak to others, but not how they look.
1. The schools are different in the sense of how crime is thought of. Where the positivist school explores facts through investigation and also explores truth, the classical is the opposite of this.
2. Cesare Lombroso was influenced by positivistic theories because of his interest in how criminality is inherited in people and you can distinguish them by their physical characteristics. Overall I do not believe his approach is valid because I do not think you can tell a criminals actions just based on their looks.
3. I think his theory tells us that there is still more research to be done to figure out how to distinguish the characteristics of criminals. I do think you can tell whether someone is a criminal or not base off of the way they look. Overall I think they cause these theories to be less popular.
4. The part of his theory that is more valid is that criminality is inheritited, however the part of his theory that I believe is less valid is that you can distinguish a criminal based off of their looks.
There are some characteristics that distinguish the Positivist School from the Classical School regarding criminological thought. The Positivist School relies solely on truth, facts, and evidence while the Classical School of criminology does not. Also, the Positivist School believes that crime is not a choice whereas the Classical School believes that crime is a choice. Cesare Lombroso is considered to be the father of modern criminology; He believed that criminality was inherited. I do not agree with this because I think that crime is a choice. People can learn behaviors, but I believe that people have the ability to tell right from wrong. Lombroso also believed that criminals had certain characteristics. Again, I do not agree with this because I do not think that a criminal looks a certain way. In my opinion, I think Lombroso’s theory on criminals having a certain appearance is the least valid. I don’t think that you can look at a person and determine them to be a criminal.
The Positivist school and the classical school are different because the positivist school is based off of mostly facts/truth where the classical school is not. The theory I find least valid was that Lombroso believed that criminals had certain characteristics. His theory was that criminals can be identified by their certain physical characteristics. I don’t believe you can be born a criminal. I believe some people are more likely to become criminals just because where they were born but being a criminal is a choice nobody can force you to become one but yourself. To top it off this article states a flaw in his theory “Unfortunately for Lombroso, subsequent research showed that the “stigmata” he identified in criminals was present in noncriminals almost equal proportion to the criminal population. As a result, he was forced to revise his theory. His revisionary hypothesis stated that “in almost all cases” it was a biological predisposition to commit crime as evidenced by stigmata (not the environment) that led to the commission of crime.” Yes, he redid his hypothesis but you can’t prove on just what somebody looks like that he will be a criminal.
Positivism is a theory based on the idea that positive knowledge might be achieved through a process of investigation. It holds that every justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of proof logically or mathematically. Lombroso was influenced by positivistic theories because of the way he looked a people. Lombroso believed that criminality was inherited, and criminals could be identified by their physical features. For example, he believed that murderers had glassy stares, bloodshot eyes, and big hawk-like noses. I do not necessarily agree with this theory because I believe people are more than their looks and for the most part you can not change the way you look. This idea does not seem very practical because the way someone looks does not always define their behavior or what they choose to do with their lives. Different events in someone’s life or they way they were raised can influence whether or not they choose to commit crimes.
Positivism was the core of Lombroso’s research. He sought to find a natural reason for criminal behavior and came to the conclusion that their basic biology was the cause for certain behavioral patterns. While this seems like a reasonable idea, our current science theories prove that otherwise. His problem was that he seemingly examined a single person and formulated this theory from one data point. I appreciate that he tried to take a scientific approach to the problem, but you need consistent results before creating a theory of some sort. While a person won’t become a criminal due to their physical features, it certainly is true that a person’s background and upbringing will cause them to act in predictable ways later in life. I agree with Lombroso that you can somewhat predict if a person will turn criminal, though I believe that it’s more psychological than physical. A child might not strictly inherit a criminal parent’s traits, but that parent and surroundings will influence the child for years until they either get out of the situation or commit some kind of crime.
Positivism is a philosophical theory that is based on positive knowledge and can be achieved through investigation, where someone understands their properties and relations. Positivism rejects the knowledge that you acquire through your individual personal experiences and knowledge based on theology. Cesare Lombroso was one of the first people to study crime using scientific methods. Lombroso’s theory was very popular in the late 19th century and 20th century about the born criminal. He believed that criminology was inherited and criminals could be identified by certain physical aspects that would confirm that they are savage. For example, things like shapes of ears, length of fingers, large chins, large noses and much more. I personally do not think that this part of Lombroso’s theory was correct. Judging someone just based off of how certain a physical aspect looks doesn’t seem very practical or able to correctly predict who is a criminal. I feel like we shouldn’t judge people of committing crimes just from the way they look and there could be more efficient ways to see if someone was a criminal.
Positivism is a theory that comes from the understanding of natural phenomena. Investigations are used in positivism to find valid knowledge and information. Positivistic theories influenced Cesare Lombroso when determining “criminal” characteristics. He believed that criminality was inherited. Lombroso also believed that criminals could be identified by physical defects. For example, he concluded that murderers were described by having cold, glassy stares, bloodshot eyes, and big noses. I do not believe Lombroso’s theory is valid. It may be true that some criminals have these defects but it is not true that just because a person may have these defects they are a criminal. Due to the finding that not everyone with these defects are considered a criminal, Lombroso was forced to revise his theory.
The classical and positivist schools differed in criminological thought because the positivist school was based off of the facts, classical school had different ideas. Positivism was based off really was positive knowledge. Cesare Lombroso was fanaticized with by crime and criminals. He wanted to know about the ordinary people along with mental patients, and criminals. He believed the physical features of people could relate to their crimes. Lombroso also did a lot of work with scientific research. Scientific research was a good approach although the fact he used personal characteristics was interesting to me. Modern Biological theories can be used to link crime with genetics in a person. I believe there are many factors to why someone commits a crime. It is valid that criminals act certain ways or look certain ways but that also does not mean people without these factors could not commit a crime.
1) The Positivist school and the classical school are different in the criminological thought because the positivist school is based off of mostly facts and truth where the classical school is not.
2) Positivistic theories influenced Lombroso because of his interest in different things and the way he looked at people. He believed that certain people (good or bad) had certain characteristics that would stick out to possibly make them a criminal or not a criminal. Although in some ways I do agree with this I do not necessarily think a criminals actions are based upon their looks. I dont see much validity in his approach.
3) Lombrosos theories on modern biological perspectives on crime are a little confusing to me. I feel as though he bases his theories off of the way people look and I dont think that is a good way to base things off of. I do think the way he looks at things causes his theories to be less popular because I dont think you should base what someone may be doing off of only their looks. Actions can come into play as well.
4) Personally I think his theory is cool. But I do not really agree with any of it. Yes i understand sometimes someone can look sketchy maybe by how they look or what they are wearing but i can see how that can be offensive as well. Just because you are not dressed up and smiling every whre you go does not make you a criminal. Just because you did not get dressed up and decided to wear sweat pants does not make you sketchy. i really just dont agree with his theory.
There is so much to take in with the information given, but at the same time not a lot of research. Cesare Lombroso, a scientist who has a fascinasion in discoviering the differences between lunatics, criminals and normal individuals, took an interest in Giuseppe Villella, a criminal with extraordinary agility and cynicism. After Villella’s death, Lombroso ran a post-mortem and discovered an abnormality with his skull as well as a similarity to skull of apes. Lombroso then continued to do research on criminals and their biological features and began to believe every criminal has distinct features or physical defects that put them apart from “ordinary individuals.” However, what exactly is a criminal? A person that steals from a store or uses drugs? Or a person that actually commits murder or robs a bank? There are individuals that look or seem “ordinary,” but commit a crime that no one could ever explain. There may be individuals that have these physical defects that are known to be criminals, but there are also some that are actually living a normal life. With that being said, it is valid that many criminals have these physical defects, but it is also not valid that they ALL are this way or that those with the defects are not criminals at all.
I am unsure how I feel about this information. I do not think that having criminal tendencies is based on how your body is formed. They just do not seem to go hand-in-hand to me. Mentally, I think there is absolutely a connection. Many people that commit violent crimes are mentally ill and either not treated well, or not diagnosed properly if at all. When it comes to the more modern findings about criminal behavior possibly being a genetic problem, that will cause many problems in our justice system. People will commit murders and blame it on their genetic malfunctions rather than their own free will. People will claim it was their destiny and it should have been expected. If these biological findings become more prevalent, technology and laws need to keep up with it. Getting out of jail time because of a mental illness is one thing: most people end up in psychiatric hospitals for the rest of their lives because they truly need help. Getting out of jail time because of biology would just be dumping the criminals back on the street. If they do not “deserve” jail/prison, and they do not need mental assistance, where are they supposed to go? How are they supposed to get help and become reformed people? These are questions nobody will be asking until it is too late. Scientists need to take a lot more into considerations before publishing findings on criminal behavior and genetics, in my opinion.
Positivism is based off the idea that positive knowledge can be achieved through investigation and rejects intuitive knowledge such as personal experiences. Philosopher Auguste Comte suggested that the physical world operates according to gravity and other absolute laws just like society does. Lombroso used scientific methods to study crime. He stated that a person could determine if someone was criminal in nature just by physical characteristics. He believed that criminality is inherited and criminals could be identified by their physical defects. While that might be one approach, it is not possible just to look at someone and say they are a criminal. With a combination of different findings and evidence, someone could come to a logical conclusion that one is criminal in nature. I think determining if someone is criminal by physical characteristics is the least valid, though I do think depending on the environment that someone is raised in, they can learn to become criminal. The different events in someone’s life could possibly decide if they are going to commit a crime or not, like losing their job or becoming homeless. Those events might drive someone into selling drugs or robbing a store.
Cesare Lombroso believed that criminality was inherited and that criminals could be identified by physical features. Such as the shape of the ears, the length of fingers and the way their foreheads slope. He determined that females have shorter skills and they were more wrinkled and had darker hair and smaller skulls than “normal” women. Lombroso said that women who commit crimes of passion had prominent lower jaws and were more wicked than their male counterparts. It was believed that examining the skull and unevenness of the head could help one discover the development of the particular cerebral “organs” responsible for the different intellectual skills.
Cesare Lombroso was fascinated by criminals and crime and wanted to see the difference between mental patients, criminals, and ordinary people. Lombroso believed that criminals had certain characteristics. His theory was that criminals can be identified by their certain physical characteristics. Lombroso believed that women criminals had smaller skulls, were shorter, had more wrinkles, and had darker hair. When it comes to whether Cesare Lombroso’s theory seems valid or not, it’s hard to determine. I believe that criminals may have a certain look to them because of the way they carry themselves. However, I do not believe that saying just because somebody looks less evolved, they are a criminal. There are many good descriptions Lombroso used when attempting to describe a criminal such as cold, bloodshot eyes, and glassy stares, but in this time period, it is easy for anybody to have this look on them and not be a criminal or visa versa.