Positivist Theories in Criminology: Lombroso, Eysenck, Trasler
Positivism’s Appeal in Criminology
Positivism insists that societal consensus exists; therefore, deviant behavior results from inadequate socialization and requires therapeutic correction. The challenge lies in how to achieve this. The proposed solution differentiates between those capable of free choice (having internalized societal norms through socialization) and a deviant minority whose behavior is seen not as a chosen lifestyle, but as determined by factors beyond their control.
Evolution of Positivist Criminology
The initial scientific attempts to understand crime were primarily social, not biological. ‘Moral statisticians’ like Quetelet and Guerry used statistics to discover that overall annual crime rates remained relatively constant. This suggested that crime was a regular feature of social activity rather than solely the product of individual tendencies, implying it could potentially be addressed through social means. Conversely, Cesare Lombroso aimed to center criminology on biology and medicine, finding significant appeal in biological determinism.
Lombroso’s Atavistic Criminal Concept
Lombroso is known for his concept of the atavistic criminal. He theorized that these were individuals exhibiting ancestral genetic traits, identifiable by specific physical characteristics (stigmata). Over time, Lombroso expanded his typology beyond innate (atavistic) criminals to include other offenders:
- The epileptic offender
- The insane offender
- A large group of ‘occasional criminals’ who might exhibit some atavistic features, have poor education, or be influenced by factors like patriotism, love, political ideals, or environmental circumstances.
XYY Chromosome Theory
This theory argues for a criminal predisposition in individuals with an XYY chromosomal abnormality. Research supporting this was conducted on institutionalized individuals (e.g., in psychiatric facilities) considered potentially criminal. Findings suggested that individuals with the XYY pattern were often tall, potentially had lower intelligence, and were frequently found among the working class. (Note: This theory and its supporting research are highly controversial and largely discredited today).
Eysenck’s Biosocial Theory
Hans Eysenck analyzed the mechanisms through which genetic predispositions might translate into criminal behavior, while fully acknowledging the influence of environmental factors. For Eysenck, avoiding antisocial behavior relies on learning conditioned responses through socialization. This conditioning process depends on:
- The individual’s inherited nervous system sensitivity (affecting how easily they are conditioned).
- The quality of the conditioning (socialization) received.
Eysenck believed that societal consensus defines normal versus deviant behavior, and the psychologist’s role is primarily to provide effective treatment methods. However, he insisted that understanding how an innate predisposition towards crime translates into actual behavior is crucial for effectively researching environmental influences. Eysenck maintained that psychological and physiological laws underpin social behavior.
Trasler’s Socialization Theory
Gordon Trasler’s contribution emphasized parenting practices grounded in clearly articulated moral principles, thereby correcting what he saw as Eysenck’s overemphasis on genetic factors. Trasler utilized two main variables:
- Differing conditionability (linked to the genetically inherited extraversion-introversion dimension – noting Eysenck associated introversion with easier conditioning, thus potentially less crime, while extraversion was linked to harder conditioning and potentially more crime).
- Varying quality of conditioning received during upbringing.
He argued that middle-class parenting, often employing reasoning, emotional appeals, and sanctions based on clear moral principles (rather than purely physical or inconsistent punishment), resulted in superior conditioning compared to typical working-class practices. Working-class conditioning was sometimes characterized as more indulgent, punitive, or lacking consistent principles. Since extraversion (with its genetic basis) is assumed to be distributed relatively equally across social classes, it cannot solely explain differing crime rates between classes. Therefore, Trasler proposed that differences in socialization (conditioning quality) are the key variable explaining class-based crime rate variations. Extraversion, however, could help explain why certain individuals within a specific class (experiencing similar socialization) might be more prone to delinquency due to their differing levels of conditionability.