Psychology is clearly not the only contributor to explanations of criminal

behaviour, although in the past it has tended to be viewed as a rather simplistic

and conservative contributor. This may be due to its emphasis on individual
pathology, i.e. a search for deficits within the individual, and an apparent
neglect of social factors in the construction of criminal careers. More recent
developments in psychology, and particularly in the applied field of forensic
psychology, however, have made a considerable impact on the contribution
psychology as a discipline can make to our understanding of crime.

WHAT EXACTLY IS CRIME
Before attempting an overview of the input of psychology, we need to take a
step back and consider the problematic concept of crime itself. The question,
what is crime? sounds as if it should have obvious answers, and certainly there
would probably be widespread agreement that some acts, such as personal
violence or theft, constitute crimes the world over. However, there might be
disagreement about whether these acts are still seen as crimes if the rule of law
is challenged, for instance in wartime. It was only in 2001 that the mass rape of
Muslim women during the Bosnian conflict of 1992-95 was first deemed to be a
crime against humanity, with three of its perpetrators receiving lengthy prison
sentences at the Hague War Tribunal. Prior to this, wartime rape and the
provision of kidnapped 'comfort women' for soldiers had been regarded simply
as a by-product of war.
While legal sanctions hold, there is reasonable understanding about what
constitutes crime, but this understanding tends to vary according to historical,
cultural and power dimensions which may rule different behaviours as criminal
at different times. Obvious examples of this are when laws change, so for
example attempting suicide was regarded as a criminal offence until 1961, while
incest was not classed as a crime until 1908. Similarly, female circumcision is
acceptable in some cultures though not in the UK, while in contrast male
circumcision has never been against the law, though in both cases genital
mutilation occurs without the consent of the individual concerned. Age and
mental state also influence whether someone is regarded as having committed a
crime. The age of criminal responsibility varies considerably from country to
country, so in the UK it is 10 while in Norway it is 15. The murder of two small
children by other children in both countries in 1993 and 1994 highlights the
very different views taken of similar crimes. In 1993, two-year-old James
Bulger was taken away from his mother in a Liverpool shopping centre by two
boys aged ten who subsequently beat and murdered him. Both boys were
charged with murder and appeared in an adult court more than a year later,
when they were ordered to serve a minimum sentence of eight years. This was
subsequently increased to ten and then fifteen years in response to public and
media outrage, though this action was later deemed unlawful. During their time
on remand they did not receive any psychiatric help because of their not guilty
pleas, prompting one of the jurors to remark five years later:
The trial was about retribution ... It was apparent that in the dock were two
children; almost entirely uncomprehending of most of the proceedings;
distressed by those parts they did understand; subject to trial as if they were
aware adults; unaccountably branded as 'evil' by the judge. (The Guardian, 5th
November 1999, Letters)
In 1994 in Trondheim, Norway, a five-year-old girl was violently killed by three
friends aged five and six while they were playing in the snow. There was no
prosecution, the boys were not named in the media, and they were Mentally ill
offenders are not normally held responsible for their crimes unless it can be
demonstrated that they intended to break the law. However, in many trials the
distinction between offenders being presented as 'mad' or 'bad' has proved
controversial and moved beyond simple psychiatric diagnosis into the realms of
moral responsibility. For instance, Peter Sutcliffe murdered 13 women in the
1970s and his defence claimed diminished responsibility on the grounds that he
was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and heard voices telling him to kill
prostitutes. The jury, however, decided that Sutcliffe was not sufficiently
mentally ill to be absolved of responsibility for the murders; he was found
guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. Three years later he was transferred
to a special hospital because of his mental illness. Similarly Jeffrey Dahmer,
who murdered and cannibalised 17 young men in the 1980s, was found not to
be suffering from the personality disorder and necrophilia his defence
described, and was sent to prison, where he was murdered by another inmate in
1994. In both cases there was clear evidence of dysfunctional behaviour with
psychiatric symptoms, and yet the horrific nature of the crimes seems to have
demanded some form of public accountability and retribution.


UNDERSTANDING THE CRIMINAL
BEHAVIOUR

Understanding criminal behaviour is complex. Crime is a socio political event
rather than a clinical condition. Crime is defined in the law as behaviour
sufficiently deviant to damage society and to merit, therefore, legal action and
the intervention of society into the lives of citizens who so deviate.
It is not a clinical or medical condition that can be diagnosed and specifically
treated. Consequently, there have been many approaches to the problem of
crime from many different viewpoints with varying degrees of compatibility
and agreement.
Certainly, criminal behaviour cannot be understood by simply viewing the
easily observable variables. Deviant behaviour may or may not be pathological
from the clinical viewpoint. It may or may not be ethically wrong. The
understanding of criminal behaviour has been attempted by conjecture and use
of trial-and-error methods, much of it emotionally involved. Hypothetical
constructs in the form of various theories have been offered and challenged;
their use to understand phenomena difficult to understand is usual procedure.
Some have proved to be helpful with the progress of research and have been
refined, while others have not and have been discarded.









CONSTITUTION THEORY: AN
INTRODUCTION

Deviant behaviour is any behaviour that is contrary to the dominant norms of
society. There are many different theories on what causes a person to perform
deviant behaviour, including biological explanations, psychological
explanations, and sociological explanations. Following are some of the major
biological explanations for deviant behaviour.
Biological theories of deviance see crime and deviant behaviour as a form of
illness caused by pathological factors that are specific to certain types of
individuals. They assume that some people are "born criminals" who are
biologically different than non-criminals. The underlying logic is that these
individuals have a mental and physical inferiority, which causes an inability to
learn and follow the rules. This in turn leads to criminal behaviour.
It should be noted that since their inception, all of the following theories have
been discredited.
The study of criminal behaviour relies on the general notion that, there are
certain acts consistent across the majority of societies that can be classed as
criminal. Furthermore, these actions must be closely related to delinquent
behaviour and even to the extent of being immoral. To identify characteristics
of those who exhibit criminal behaviour we need to use conventional
methodology consistently used in personality research. This involves finding
individual differences in trait and response. In this case these factors need be
identified between criminals and non-criminals and this has been a common
approach from all different perspectives of psychology regarding criminal
behaviour.
Furthermore, to argue this statement that criminal behaviour is largely
determined by genetics, the strengths and empirical evidence supporting
genetic-based theories will be assessed. For comparison, the proven
effectiveness of genetic-based theories in determining a criminal personality
will be assessed along with other potential causes of criminal behaviour. One of
the more popular genetic-based theories for criminality comes from Sheldon
who proposed the idea that there are three variations of body type
(somatotypes). Furthermore, these three body types are argued to have distinct
traits which define their personality. The Mesomorphic body type is stated as
being broad /muscular with a competitive, adventurous and more interestingly;
aggressive personality. The Ectomorphic body type in contrast is fragile/thin
with a restrained and introverted personality. Finally, the other body type is
Endomorphic' which can be described as soft/round with a sociable and
outgoing personality. All of these body type/personality descriptions were the
product of his own research (Sheldon,1942).
The basis of this theory in regard to criminal personality makes the assumption
that those with a mesomorphic body type are more prone to delinquency and
criminal activity (aggressive personality). There is a wealth of empirical
evidence to support this theory including a study by Sheldon himself who used
a sample of over four-hundred males in criminal rehabilitation. From the results
of this study he found an overwhelming majority of the sample taken were
mesomorphs. In contrast, there was a distinct lack of ectomorphs who are
portrayed as having a personality, almost directly opposite to that of individuals
with a mesomorphic body type . These finding were followed up by a later more
developed study comparing personality types between five-hundred non-
delinquents and five-hundred delinquent individuals. These were matched for
age, intelligence, residence andethnic background. The findings supported the
above mentioned study with over 60% of delinquents being identified as being
mesomorphic as opposed to only 30% of non-delinquents .
Although there are many studies which support Sheldon's constitutional theory
there have been replications which have proven somewhat inconclusive. There
are arguments over the credibility of Sheldon's studies; most notably, the
delinquent groups were subjectively selected without the basis of legal
definitions. Furthermore, a study aimed to replicate those previous, but
reclassifying delinquents using legal criteria. This study found a difference far
less significant between different body types. However, delinquent youths still
showed higher ratings towards a mesomorphic body type.




ORIGIN: CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES

Lombroso in 1876 argued that the criminal is a separates species, a species that
is between modern and primitive humans. He argued that the physical shape of
the head and face determined the "born criminal". These people were primitive
and were unable to adapt to modern morality. His view was based on genetics.
The atavist (primitive genetic form) and had large jaws, high cheek bones, large
ears, extra nipples, toes or fingers, and were insensitive to pain. Lombroso went
further and suggested that from the surveys he had carried out in prison, he
could detect physiological differences between different types of criminal.
Thus, murderers were said to have: Cold, glassy, blood-shot eyes, curly,
abundant hair, strong jaws, long ears and thin lips Whilst sex offenders have:
Glinting eyes, strong jaws, thick lips, lots of hair and projecting ears.'
Lombroso's views received some indirect support from Goring, who in 1913
studied 3000 English convicts and found that although anatomical differences
were not as extreme as Lombroso had suggested, a common factor in his
subjects was low intelligence. At this time intelligence was regarded as
genetically determined and so criminal behaviour too was seen to be linked to
genetic inheritance. Within such a reductionist biological determinism,
characteristics such as intelligence and criminality are seen as fixed and
immutable. Any possibility of social factors influencing outcome is minimised.
From this perspective it is a short step to compulsory sterilisation of those who
are deemed immoral' or mentally deficient, a policy which not only existed in
Nazi Germany, but in Sweden, Britain and the USA.
It is easy now to criticise Lombroso's theories; for instance, his research
methodology was not particularly rigorous (he did not use a proper control
group, often relying on large groups of soldiers, and his criminal samples
contained large numbers of the mentally disturbed) and his conclusions sound
bizarre. Perhaps the most important criticism, however, is Lombrosos failure to
recognise that correlation does not imply causality. Simply became his criminal
subjects shared a significant number of physical anomalies does not mean that
this made them criminal. It could be that poverty and deprivation produce
physical defects, rather than the defects being the result of genetic transmission.
There are a large number of people with unpleasant looks in the prison
population. However this may be caused by the stereotype of an unpleasant
looking person being a criminal. If from an earlier age less attractive
individuals have been rejected by others then they might turn to criminality. A
study that involved giving prisoners plastic surgery in America, found that they
were less likely to commit crimes upon release.
But in spite of the obvious criticism and lack of political correctness, could
Lombroso have had something? Maybe we can rule out the possibility of
genetic transmission, for as Rowe (1990) says:
No responsible geneticist would argue that a specific gene exists for crime, as
specific genes may be identified for Huntington's disease or eye colour.
William Sheldon believed that people could be classified into three body
shapes, which correspond with three different personality types.
(a) endomorphic (fat and soft) tend to be sociable and relaxed.
(b)ectomorphic (thin and fragile) are introverted and restrained
(c) mesomorphic (muscular and hard) tend to be aggressive and
adventurous.

Sheldon, using a correlational study, found that many convicts were
mesomorphic, and they were least likely to be ectomorphic (Sheldon et al
1949).
Although Sheldon's work was criticised on methodological and subjective
grounds (because he rated his subjects' body types himself) his theories were
supported in the area of criminal behaviour by Glueck and Glueck (1956) who
found that in a sample of delinquents 60% were mesomorphs, whilst in a non-
delinquent sample only 31% were, and by Corts and Gatti (1972) who found in
a sample of 100 delinquents that 57% were mesomorphic compared with 19%
of controls.
Wadsworth (1979), in contrast to Sheldon's finding that large and muscular
convicts predominate, found that British delinquents who committed serious
crimes tended to be smaller than average and were late in reaching puberty!

West and Farrington (1973) in their longitudinal study of London working-
class boys, found no association between delinquency and body shape or size.
Feldman (1977) points out that these relationships between shape and
criminality can be explained by expectations. Such features might catch the
attention of police or influence juries or sentencing. The mesomorph is more
likely to use aggression because size is on their side.
In 1939 Thornton showed 20 photographs of criminals to people who were
asked to choose one of four crimes each of the criminals might have committed.
He found that people could match faces to crimes more reliably than would
have been predicted by chance.
Bull (1982) achieved similar results, this time using photographs of non-
criminal individuals but still producing an association between some faces and
some crimes, which was stronger than could have been predicted by chance.
Masters and Greaves (1969) surveyed the incidence of facial deformities in
11,000 prisoners and concluded that 60% of them had facial deformities by
comparison with 20% in a non-criminal population.












MEANING

Considering all evidence, it is clear there is a strong link between the
mesomorphic body-type and the development of a criminal personality.
However, the credibility of Sheldon's studies can be questioned regarding the
defining of body-types. Sheldon himself admits there are hybrids between body-
types and so the definition of the mesomorph may have been manipulated to fit
into theory. This idea is supported by findings in other studies which have
shown less significance towards body-type and delinquency .
Ultimately, it's difficult to argue this theory is solely genetic-based as body-type
may have an environmental influence. For example, the way these people are
perceived by the police and criminal justice agents may make them vulnerable
to the justice system. Furthermore, mesomorphs from an early age may find
using aggression is an easy way to get what they want using their muscular
build to their advantage; thus being conditioned into delinquency in later life.
Ultimately, the mesomorphic body type may have more success in crime and
individuals with this body may be likely included in gangs delving in criminal
activity.
There are numerous theories which claim the criminal personality has a
hereditary or genetic component. Lombroso, a criminal anthropologist was one
of the earliest theorists who believed criminal behaviour had a genetic
component unlike that of their non-criminal counterparts. Furthermore, there
was a genetic element formulating the idea that a criminal is born, not made. In
addition, Lombroso argued that indirect heredity' influences can create a
criminal personality by means of interacting with other degenerates such as the
insane. To gather research to support the genetic influence in the creation of a
criminal we need to rely on twin and adoption studies. Firstly, twin studies,
particularly monozygotic twins (Identical) allow us to assume concordance rates
between them, go some way to supporting genetic theorists about criminals.
Twin studies aim to compare the difference in concordant rates between
monozygotic twins (MZ- identical) and dizygotic twins (DZ- genetics
comparable to normal sibling). The assumption behind this comparison is the
idea that both sets of twins share a similar environment and so any discernible
difference in concordance of delinquency can be credited to genetics.
Early studies in the area found extremely significant concordance rates for MZ
twins in contrast to DZ twins. For example (Lange, 1929) found 77%
concordance rate for criminal behaviour between MZ twins compared to a 12%
rate in DZ twins. Similarly, (Rosenoff, 1932) found a concordance rate of 68%
between MZ twins as opposed to a concordance rate of 10% in DZ twins. These
findings put great emphasis on the importance of genetic influences on criminal
behaviour. However, the credibility of these early studies was heavily criticised
for small sample sizes with the above studies having a sample size of only fifty
MZ twins and only seventy-seven DZ twins collectively. Additionally, the
earlier studies did not have the advantages of DNA to identify the ziygocity of
twins and relied on face recognition and other unreliable methods. Ultimately,
advances in technology and understanding on DNA were capitalised in later
studies to improve credibility.
Moreover, a good example of a later study examined influences on delinquency
with the focus on three factors and not solely on genetic concordance. These
factors were twin type (MZ or DZ), environmental influences (i.e. poor
background) and environmental influences for the individual twin (i.e. peer
group). The sophisticated design matched sample groups of MZ and DZ twins
to be similar. The goal of this method was to reach a more concrete conclusion
on the dominance of genetic factors over environmental. The study concluded
that genetic factors had a 60% influence on criminal behaviour. Furthermore,
the shared twin environment and the individual twin environment each only
accounted for a 20% influence (Rowe & Osgood, 1984). These statistics
emphasise the role genetics play in the criminal personality, this concept is
widely supported by many reviews of studies in the area of criminal
psychology. However, there are limitations to twin studies such as a selection
bias towards MZ twins who are more similar in terms of personality and the
notion that MZ twins may share a more similar environment than DZ twins (i.e.
parents and peers may treat MZ twins differently).
A possible solution for this problem comes in the form of adoption studies using
a sample of children who have a biological parent, or biological parents with a
criminal record. In one particular study, a sample of adopted children whose
biological mothers had a criminal record were selected and matched against
adoptees whose biological mothers did not have a criminal record. The findings
of this study concluded that 50% of adoptees whose biological mother had a
criminal record, had one themselves by the age of eighteen compared to only
5% in the other group. With the absence of family influence (environmental) the
findings give strong evidence in support of genetic influence (Crowe, 1974).
However, likewise with twin studies, adoption studies are still not a conclusive
representation of genetics and criminal behaviour.
Moreover, it is impossible to rule out the role of environmental factors in the
causation of criminal behaviour. This is evident in another study which took
criminal records of both biological and adoptive parents into consideration.
The results confirmed that as well as a genetic influence there is also a
significant environmental influence. Firstly, the adoptee with non-criminal
biological parents and criminal adoptive parents were over 10% more likely to
receive a criminal record than those whose biological and adoptive parents who
had no criminal history. In addition to this, adoptees that had both a criminal
biological and adoptive parents showed the highest rates of receiving a criminal
record in comparison to all other combinations in this study . Ultimately,
environmental factors cannot be ignored in this particular topic.
To fully explain the influences of criminal behaviour it is evident from above
assessment of biological explanations that the role of genetics cannot be fully
accountable. Furthermore, although biological theories and research have strong
support for genetic influences on criminal behaviour, the findings have also
suggested that social factors are likewise significant. As stated previously,
although studies conducted for biological theories provide evidence for a
genetic component of criminal behaviour they simply can't explain it solely with
these explanations. Moreover, arguments can be made regarding constitutional
theory as the findings could be a result of social interaction concerning their
body rather than a specific genetic code. Furthermore adoption studies using a
sample of biological and adoptive parents with or without criminal records
proved both genetic and social influences.
In regards to the original statement it is impossible to explain criminal
behaviour simply through genetics and so the role of social influences needs to
be addressed. Firstly, the role of parenting is seen as an important factor. The
findings of a collection of case studies investigating parenting in delinquent'
found that their methods were consistently lax, harsh and overly punitive (no
control) (Patterson, 1988). In other research there is evidence to suggest that
intelligence may be an important factor in the causation of delinquency.

LOMBROSOS THEORY

Cesare Lombroso was an Italian criminologist of the mid to late 1800s. He
rejected the Classical School, which believed that crime was a characteristic of
human nature and instead believed that criminality was inherited. From this
belief, he developed a theory of deviance in which a persons bodily
constitution indicates whether or not an individual is a "born criminal." These
"born criminals" are a throwback to an earlier stage of human evolution with the
physical makeup, mental capabilities, and instincts of primitive man.
In developing his theory, Lombroso observed the physical characteristics of
Italian prisoners and compared them to those of Italian soldiers. He concluded
that the criminals were physically different. The physical characteristics that he
used to identify prisoners included an asymmetry of the face or head, large
monkey-like ears, large lips, a twisted nose, excessive cheekbones, long arms,
and excessive wrinkles on the skin. Lombroso declared that males with five or
more of these characteristics could be marked as born criminals. Females, on
the other hand, only needed as few as three of these characteristics to be born
criminals.
Lombroso also believed that tattoos were markings of born criminals because
they stood as evidence of both immortality and insensitivity to physical pain.
Lombroso claimed that criminality was heritable. He suggested that there was
distinct biological class of people that were prone to criminality. These people
exhibited atavistic (i.e. primitive) features; Lombroso suggested that they were
throwbacks who had biological characteristics from an earlier stage of human
development that manifested as a tendency to commit crimes. Lombroso
claimed that criminal types were distinguishable from the general population
because they looked different. The principle markers of criminality were a
strong jaw and a heavy brow. However, he also suggested that different types of
criminal had different features, so murderers had bloodshot eyes and curly hair,
whilst sex offenders had thick lips and protruding ears.
One hundred or so years later, Lombrosos theory appears faintly ridiculous to
most of us, and there is no doubt that it is deeply flawed. First, Lombroso did
not use any non-criminal control groups to establish whether the atavistic
features he identified were confined to the criminal population.
Second, his sample is likely to have contained a large number of people with
psychological disorders and chromosomal abnormalities, so he has not
distinguished adequately between criminality and pathology. Third, crime is
neither a natural nor a homogenous category of behaviour; it is a social
construction, which makes the argument that criminal behaviour as such is
inherited hard to sustain. Fourth, our current understanding of genetic influences
on behaviour does not support the idea that complex behaviours (like most
criminal activities) are controlled by single genes.
To be fair to Lombroso, he modified his theories quite extensively over the
course of his career. He eventually came to believe that only about a third of
criminality was directly attributable to atavistic features. The majority of
criminal behaviour in his later theories was the result of environmental factors
such as poverty and poor education. Although Lombrosos theories are no
longer taken seriously by criminological psychologists it is important to
appreciate that he made several important contributions to the discipline.
Specifically, Lombroso
(1) Shifted the study of criminal behaviour from a moral basis to an
empirical one; and
(2) Argued for the interaction of biological, psychological and social factors
in causing criminal behaviour. As a result, he is regarded by many as the
father of modern criminology.
CRITICISM
Lombroso's theories can be criticised on methodological grounds - for instance,
he did not use a proper control group, often relying on large groups of soldiers,
and his criminal samples contained large numbers of the mentally disturbed.
One of the most important criticisms of Lombroso's theory was that he failed to
recognise that correlation does not imply causality. Simply because his criminal
subjects shared a significant number of physical anomalies does not mean that
this made them criminal. It could be that poverty and deprivation produced the
physical defects he noted, rather than them being the result of genetic
transmission. In later years Lombroso modified his thinking on criminality and
was more prepared to accept that the environment can influence the onset of
criminal behaviour.

ENDOCRINE ABNORMALITIES

There was a time in the 1920s and 30s when endocrine abnormalities were
regarded as of great significance in the explanation of crime . The connection
between the secretions of the endocrine-glands and human behaviour was
stressed, and it became fashionable to seek gland treatments to prolong youth
and enhance beauty. In some countries the fashion spread to the explanation of
criminal behaviour. Italy, Sweden and some countries in South America may be
mentioned. The link made is usually with aggression. Though the significance
of glandular dysfunction may not yet be fully understood, it seems right to say
that the more extravagant claims for this factor as an explanation of crime are
not substantiated.















SHELDONS THEORY OF BODY TYPES

William Sheldon was an American psychologist from the early to mid-1900s
who spent his life observing the varieties of human bodies. As a result, he came
up with three types of human bodies: ectomorphs, endomorphs, and
mesomorphs.
ECTOMORPHS are thin and fragile. Their body is described as flat-chested,
fragile, lean, lightly muscled, small shouldered, and thin. Celebrities that could
be described as ectomorphs include Kate Moss, Edward Norton, and Lisa
Kudrow.
The Ectomorph is a form of opposite of the Endomorph. Physically, they tend to
have:
Narrow shoulders and hips
A thin and narrow face, with a high forehead
A thin and narrow chest and abdomen
Thin legs and arms
Very little body fat
Even though they may eat as much as the endomorph, they never seem to put on
weight (much to the endomorph's chagrin). Psychologically they are:
Self-conscious
Private
Introverted
Inhibited
Socially anxious
Artistic
Intense
Emotionally restrained
Thoughtful


ENDOMORPHS are considered soft and fat. They are described as having a
soft body, underdeveloped muscles, a round physique, and they often have
difficulty losing weight. John Goodman, Roseanne Barr, and Jack Black are all
celebrities that would be considered endomorphs.
The Endomorph is physically quite 'round', and is typified as the 'barrel of fun'
person. They tend to have:
Wide hips and narrow shoulders, which makes them rather pear-shaped.
Quite a lot of fat spread across the body, including upper arms and thighs.
They have quite slim ankles and wrists, which only serves to accentuate
the fatter other parts.
Psychologically, the endomorph is:
Sociable
Fun-loving
Love of food
Tolerant
Even-tempered
Good humored
Relaxed
With a love of comfort
And has a need for affection

MESOMORPHS are muscular and athletic. Their body is described as
hourglass shaped (female) or rectangular shaped (male), muscular, has excellent
posture, gains muscle easily, and has thick skin. Famous mesomorphs include
Bruce Willis and Sylvester Stallone. Mesomorphs, according to Sheldon, are the
most prone to commit crime or deviant behaviours.
Sheldon advanced a theory that shares with Lombrosos the idea that criminal
behaviour is linked to a persons physical form. Sheldon distinguished between
three basic types of bodily build: ectomorph (thin), endomorph (fat) and
mesomorph (muscular). Sheldon believed that bodily build was linked to
personality and temperament so ectomorphs were solitary and restrained,
endomorphs relaxed and hedonistic and mesomorphs energetic and
adventurous. Pure somatotypes are rare, and most people represent a blending
of different types. Sheldons principle claim was that mesomorphs are more
prone to criminal activity than the other two types.
Consequently his theory predicts that there should be a relationship between
how mesomorphic a person is and their degree of criminality.
The mesomorph is somewhere between the round endomorph and the thin
ectomorph. Physically, they have the more 'desirable' body, and have:
Large head, broad shoulders and narrow waist (wedge-shaped).
Muscular body, with strong forearms and and thighs
Very little body fat
They are generally considered as 'well-proportioned'. Psychologically, they are:
Adventurous
Courageous
Indifferent to what others think or want
Assertive/bold
Zest for physical activity
Competitive
With a desire for power/dominance
And a love of risk/chance


CRITICISM
Psychological profiling based on anatomical features is generally not considered
to be reliable these days. Nevertheless, such patterns do have some level of
interest, and old theories are often ingrained in society, as well as being based
on some form of observation.
The best approach is to use this as a test. When you meet a person who seems to
fit in with the physical characteristics above, be curious to see if they also fit
into the psychological profile. If it all works as predicted, then well and good (it
may be that they are actually in a self-fulfilling prophesy, where they fit
themselves to the appropriate model). Otherwise, look elsewhere for ways to
understand the person.
Sheldon's original work included attempts to characterize criminals (in the style
of Lombroso's original work in this area). Unsurprisingly, he found that a
number were muscular mesomorphs, as violent crimes are likely to be carried
out by strong men. The trap beyond this is to assume that all mesomorphs are
criminal in nature. This is not unlike the work that 'proved' women to be less
intelligent than men because they have smaller brains.
















Y CHROMOSOME THEORY

The extra Y chromosome theory is the belief that criminals have an extra Y
chromosome, giving them an XYY chromosome makeup rather than an XY
makeup, that creates a strong compulsion within them to commit crimes. This
person is sometimes called the "super male." Some studies have found that the
proportion of XYY males in the prison population is higher than the general
male population (1 to 3 percent versus less than 1 percent), however other
studies dont provide evidence that supports this theory.
This theory suggested that some crime might be attributable to a chromosomal
abnormality. Sex is determined by the pattern of a persons sex chromosomes:
XX in a woman, XY in a man. It is a Y chromosome that makes a person male.
It is well known that atypical chromosomal combinations can result in atypical
sexual development. For example, in Klinefelters Syndrome the combination
XXY results in a male form with some female characteristics.
Since an extra X appears to feminize men, some theorists speculated that an
additional Y chromosome might hyper masculinise men who had it. Since
men are more aggressive than women, it might be that men who have XYY
chromosomes might be more aggressive than other men and hence more likely
to commit violent crimes.
The idea was advanced that offender populations in prisons and hospitals would
be likely to contain large numbers of XYY men. Some claims were made that
high profile, prolific offenders, such as the American serial killer Arthur
Shawcross, had the XYY pattern. It was eventually established that XYY men
are rare in the general population but more common in the offender population
(Howitt, 2009).
Whilst this is as expected, the problem is that XYY men tend to commit
nonviolent crime, not violent crime as the XYY hypothesis predicts . Why
might this be ? Testosterone levels amongst XYY men are no different from XY
men, and they are no more aggressive than the general population. However,
they are at a substantially increased risk of developmental delay and learning
difficulties .
There is a small association between learning difficulties and criminal
behaviour. IQ scores amongst convicted offenders are marginally lower than the
general population and there is a slightly higher prevalence of mild learning
difficulties amongst offender groups . It might therefore be the case that the
higher than expected number of XYY men in the offender population is a
consequence of the learning difficulties associated with the condition.






















WHY IS GENDER IMPORTANT IN
EXPLANATIONS OF CRIME

Probably the most significant feature of both recorded and self-reported crime is
that more males than females commit offences. This is particularly true for
violent crime, in spite of claims that women are becoming more aggressive , or
that, because of their inherent deviousness, they have always been more
criminal but have simply been able to conceal it . In 1997 only 1 % of known
offenders were women, and it is estimated that only 8% of women have a
conviction by the age of 40, compared with 34% of men . There have also been
suggestions that the criminal justice system is more 'chivalrous' towards
females, and thus the gender difference is not as large as would appear from
official figures , although self-report studies bear out the differential . Most
explanations of the gender gap in crime draw on accepted differences between
males and females such as dominance, aggression, physique and nurturance.
Others point to female socialisation which tends to be characterised by greater
parental supervision, more stress on conformity, and fewer opportunities for
crime. Those females who do deviate are viewed as having not only rejected
society's rules but the traditional female role too, and are described as showing
'double deviance' while risking 'double jeopardy' . In fact Lombroso and Ferrero
(1895) suggested that criminal women were rare, but those who had not been
'neutralised by maternity' were likely to become even worse criminals than men.
Criminology has notoriously ignored the issue of gender, preferring to offer
universal theories of crime based on empirical work which has relied only on
male subjects. As Cain (1989) points out:
Men as males have not been the objects of the criminological gaze. Yet the
most consistent and dramatic findings from Lombroso to post-modern
criminology is not that most criminals are working-class ... but that most
criminals are, and always have been, men.


It was not until the 1970s that feminist criminologists such as Heidensohn
(1968) and Smart (1977) began to point out this gross oversight. Since then
there have been significant developments in the area, with calls to 'feminize'
socialisation in an attempt to reduce crime and to ascertain why females tend to
conform rather than searching for why males offend ; and suggestions that
'masculinity' itself should be examined more closely in order to understand why
so many young men commit offences and are also the victims of crime . As
Wilson and Hermstein (1985) observe:
Crime is an activity disproportionately carried out by young men living in
large cities. There are old criminals, and female ones, and rural and small
town ones, but to a much greater degree than would be expected by chance,
criminals are young urban males.
The fact that over 80% of all offenders are male , and that this pattern is
repeated internationally, inevitably begs the question that many criminologists
have hitherto avoided asking - what is it about the cultural history and social
construction of masculinity which ensures that so many young men become
involved in crime?
One of the most useful analyses of masculinity in relation to crime has come
from theorists using the concepts of psychoanalysis and object-relations theory
in an attempt to place psychic processes within a social context. Frosh (1994)
draws on the work of Nancy Chodorow (1978), and argues that the process of
separation in early childhood is different for girls and boys.
Rather than simply examining female crime as if it were somehow different -
and in so doing accepting a marginalised status within criminology which
allows the discipline's gender-blindness to be condoned and continue - it is
suggested that a gendered analysis of crime is the only way forward.
Messerschmidt (1993) provides an astute analysis of gender and crime,
highlighting particular aspects of masculinity, such as the collective processes
of male youth groups and the 'public' arena in which masculine rituals are
played out, as the major contributory factors to the predominance of male crime.



There have also been some very useful attempts to provide gendered analyses of
specific crimes, including Jackson's (1995) examination of the murder of James
Bulger, and Mai and Alpert's (2000) psychodynamic analysis of the motives of
the two young men involved in the Colombine High School shootings. In both
accounts links are made between the social construction of masculinity, the
masculine signifier of violence, and the potential mismatch between cultural
expectations and vulnerable individuals which may lead to inappropriate
overcompensation.



















CONCLUSION

Psychological explanations of crime reflect the range of perspectives within the
discipline of psychology. Thus, psychobiological, psychoanalytic and learning
theories are well represented, alongside a predictable emphasis on individual
differences. However, crime always occurs in a social context and so factors
such as ethnicity, gender, group dynamics, media pressure and cultural
expectations cannot be ignored. The contribution of psychology is therefore
valuable in terms of extending our understanding of crime as long as it is seen
as part of a multidisciplinary approach.

Whilst there is evidence that some physiological factors are associated with an
increased risk of criminal behaviour, it is clear that there is no one physiological
abnormality that causes people to commit crimes. Given the diversity and
complexity of the range of behaviours encompassed by the term crime this is
not really surprising. Even if we were to focus on one category of criminal
behaviour, for example, violent crime, it seems unlikely that a single
pathological factor would be able to account for all examples. As Lombroso
realized, a satisfactory explanation of a crime is likely to require consideration
of biological, psychological, environmental and social factors.