Sociology of crime

It is quite important to look at the works of Cesare Lommbroso before taking a position. It is posited that Lombroso made a series of measurements based on a number of offenders. It is on the evidence Lombroso amassed that he took the position that criminality is inherited. Lombroso termed the responsible gene as a defective one. Lambroso also found out that most of the prisoners possessed a higher number of cheek bones, large ears, and large jaws.

In my opinion I think Lombroso was wrong. This is because criminal tendencies are either learnt or copied from close associates. It is trough continuous contact that people develop habits. So, the supposition that habits are inherited fails the intelligence test.

It is true that concepts like stigmata, atavism and born criminal act to reinforce Lambrosos position. Though there are exceptions in every rule, I find this conclusion that criminality is inherited to be false.
I think that the act of staying as a family which predisposes members to what the seniors do is primarily responsible for criminality. As members in a family, the young are most likely to copy their elders. This may explain why certain families produce criminals. It is more of upbringing rather than the genetic makeup.

In light of this discussion, I appreciate Lombrosos contribution though I find it unconvincing. Criminality is a kind of behaviour that is developed through learning. This is why I rebuff the idea of gene makeup as a factor in criminality.


Post a Comment