Biosocial and Sociological Theories of Crime

Biosocial Theories of Crime

Among biosocial theories explaining the causes of crime, the most popular are foreign theories of dangerous states, Freudian and psychopathological causes, constitutional predisposition, hereditary, racial, and other theories.

The Theory of Dangerous State

The theory of the dangerous state was first substantiated in the book “Criteria of Dangerous State” (1880) by Italian criminologist Raffaele Garofalo (1859-1934). He understood a dangerous state as a variable and inherent tendency in a person to commit crimes, i.e., inevitability. As a result, he proposed applying preventive measures, up to imprisonment, to individuals before they commit a crime.

The modern theory of the dangerous state was developed by Jean Pinatel, vice president of the International Criminological Association. In German criminology, the dangerous state is referred to as predisposition (die Anlage) to commit a crime (Exner, Seelig, Kaiser, and others).

Pinatel considers the dangerous state a clinical, not a legal, phenomenon. According to him, criminological diagnosis occurs in three stages:

1. Diagnosis of criminal traits — This stage has three phases:
   • Ethical egocentrism: Individuals devalue laws and justice in their moral consciousness, believing themselves more honest than those who might judge them.
   • Stage of formulated consent: The person is no longer restrained by the threat of punishment.
   • Period of crisis: Immediately precedes the commission of a crime; the person is fully ready to commit a specific crime at any moment.

   Pinatel writes: “Egocentrism, lability, aggressiveness, affectivity, and indifference form the core of the criminal personality and, consequently, its criminal abilities and tendencies.” He attributes these psychological traits to any criminal, though they are more typical of violent offenders and serve as internal conditions for violent criminal behavior, not as causes.

2. Diagnosis of social maladaptation — This involves identifying personality traits and behaviors related to profession, physical inclinations, intellect, and instincts in relation to the requirements of social groups.
3. Diagnosis of the dangerous state itself — Determined by the relationship between criminal abilities and social maladaptation (i.e., biological and social traits). Pinatel identifies four combinations:
   • Strong criminal ability and strong adaptability: The most serious form; such individuals can commit serious crimes under the guise of social adaptation (e.g., “white-collar” criminals).
   • High criminal ability and weak adaptability: Less dangerous, as their maladaptation draws attention; they commit minor and episodic crimes.
   • Weak criminal abilities and weak adaptation: Less dangerous, but these individuals make up the main prison population, often being mentally deficient or life failures.
   • Weak criminal abilities and strong adaptability: Least dangerous, but may commit crimes under extraordinary circumstances.

While logically sound, this classification is flawed because it relies only on psychological traits without distinguishing moral, motivational, or guiding content, and focuses on socio-psychological rather than social traits. The diagnostic apparatus is also problematic, lacking statistical and qualitative support, which is dangerous in practice as unqualified individuals may apply these concepts to institutionalize people regardless of actual crimes.

G. Kaiser defines predisposition to crime as “deficiencies in socialization and structural disorders” (“severe personality disorders”) but does not specify or diagnose them. In Germany, such theories have led to the practice of “preventive detention in closed institutions.”

N. F. Kuznetsova identifies the main shortcomings of dangerous state theories:

• Equating dangerous state with the criminal personality without statistical justification.
• Combinations of dangerous states are speculative and not empirically supported.
• Criteria for dangerous state are vague and arbitrary, making diagnosis practically impossible.
• The theory does not explain (nor aims to explain) the causes of crime in society.
• The concept serves as a basis for applying preventive security measures to individuals.

Freudian Theories of Crime

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) laid the foundation for the psychoanalytic understanding of crime. He believed that three deep-seated antisocial instincts drive people, later called inferiority complexes:

• Aggressive
• Sexual
• Fear of death

In the 1940s-50s, American supporters like Abrahamsen, Karpman, and Silburg explained violent crime, sexual offenses, and juvenile delinquency through these complexes. For example, they believed that inferiority complexes in the form of aggressive and sexual instincts cause violent and sexual crimes. German criminologist G. Kaiser noted that psychoanalytic criminologists assume criminals have defective forms of conscience development, based on distorted unconscious imitation of parents. Early and strong internal conflicts lead the “I” to primitive defense mechanisms to suppress these conflicts and related fears.

The main drawback of these theories is that logical, experimental, or statistical arguments are replaced by speculative reasoning, mythical symbols, and arbitrarily constructed schemes.

Racial and Hereditary Theories

These are the most dangerous theories, positing the existence of “lower” and “higher” races, with the former allegedly more predisposed to crime. In Nazi Germany, Jews, Slavs, and Roma were classified as “lower” races. In the US, some criminologists focus on people of color, especially African Americans. Criminologist Hooton supported his theory with comparative conviction statistics, showing African Americans are convicted two to three times more often than whites. However, this reflects specific social reactions of the justice system, not inherent criminality. Barnes and Teeters wrote: “If the crime rate among African Americans is high, it is largely due to their socio-economic difficulties and conditions arising from their conflict with whites.”

There is also the theory of psychopathological causes (the criminal is always a psychopath or mentally deficient) and the theory of constitutional predisposition (a direct link between body type, character traits, and behavior). Sheldon identified endomorphic (fat), mesomorphic (muscular), and ectomorphic (thin, nervous) types, and the Gluecks found that 60% of juvenile inmates were mesomorphic.

Hereditary theories claim that the causes of crime are inherited genetically, encoded in chromosomes, and determine predisposition to criminal behavior. Variants include:

• Twin studies: Identical twins are statistically more likely to commit similar crimes than fraternal twins.
• Family tree theory: Tracing criminals’ ancestry over generations to prove hereditary origins of crime.
• Chromosomal anomaly theory: People inherit 23 pairs of chromosomes; men with an extra Y chromosome (XYY) are said to have increased male traits (height, strength, aggression), while XXY increases female traits (large hips, emotionality, softness).

These theories can be dangerous, as their preventive programs often focus on treatment rather than rehabilitation, sometimes involving surgery (e.g., electroshock, lobotomy, psychotropic drugs).

Sociological Theories of Crime

Now let’s look at modern sociological theories.

The most widespread are the theory of scientific and technological progress as a universal cause of crime, and the theory of differential association (Sutherland and Cressey), which posits that people are not born criminals but learn criminal behavior through communication in micro-groups, especially when antisocial views and behaviors dominate these interactions. Theories of class and property status (Chambliss, Tham, Mannheim, etc.) belong to the new or critical, radical wing of criminology. Theories of social disorganization and especially the theory of multiple factors are also common. Since the last two have methodological significance, let’s examine them in more detail.

The Theory of Multiple Factors

This was the leading theory in the last century, developed by French statisticians Quetelet and Guerry. According to N. F. Kuznetsova, “The essence of this theory is that the causes of crime are not a single phenomenon, but a large group. The factors are of different natures: physical, climatic, geographic, psychological, anthropological, social. Different authors list different numbers and groupings of such factors (Barth counts 170). The action of these factors on crime is simultaneous and of equal order.”

Today, this theory is promoted by Canadian criminologist D. Szabo, American Caldwell, and French scholars J. Pinatel and Stansyu. It is also widespread in Russian criminology, often in an oversimplified form. For example, Stansyu’s “Crime in Paris” lists 11 factors:

• Laws of modern technology that dehumanize human laws
• Population density as a result of industrialization
• Industrialization
• Competition (in comfort, cars, bank accounts as indicators of success)
• Poverty, especially harsh in Paris where it contrasts with ostentatious wealth and indifference
• Frustration, causing aggression, as crime is triggered by both material and emotional deficiencies
• Fear of new diseases of civilization, such as accidents with powerful technology
• Boredom, which tires more than work in conditions of increasing leisure
• Alcoholism, the most significant factor, but a consequence of other social ills
• Ethno-psychological incompatibility (e.g., between French and Algerians, Parisians and provincials)
• Mass psychology, which depersonalizes and standardizes people, creating feelings of inferiority

Thus, there are many factors influencing crime, and they are very diverse (anthropological, cosmic, psychological, geographic, social, climatic, etc.). Authors often do not distinguish causes from conditions, or between social, sociological, and micro-environmental psychological levels. As a result, these factors are treated as equal, making it impossible to separate them by level or mechanism, or to develop specific intervention programs. There is also a mechanical, one-dimensional approach, and no distinction between causal, functional, and correlational dependencies.

Advantages of this theory include:

• Analysis of some negative phenomena (unemployment, poverty, etc.)
• Recognition that the causes of crime are multiple and should be researched
• Critical analysis of biosocial theories

Theory of Social Disorganization

Émile Durkheim is considered the founder of this theory. He developed the concept of anomie (from Greek, meaning absence of law or order) as the absence of norms and order, which leads to crime and abnormal behavior. Durkheim wrote that normal life in society is possible when its members are united by adherence to all norms, especially legal ones. When normlessness prevails, it leads to disunity and, ultimately, crime and other negative behaviors, such as suicide.

This theory was further developed by American criminologists R. Merton, E. Schur, R. Clarke, as well as T. Sellin (“Culture Conflict”) and Taft (“Cultural Theory of Crime”).

R. Merton’s main thesis: “Deviant behavior can be seen as a symptom of inconsistency between culturally defined goals and socially organized means of achieving them.” Based on the correspondence between goals and means, Merton identifies five types of behavior:

• Positive means, positive goals — law-abiding behavior
• Positive attitude toward goals but rejection of means — deviant behavior
• Negative or indifferent attitude toward goals but positive evaluation of means — “ritual” behavior (e.g., in some sects)
• Rejection of both goals and means, leading to withdrawal from life — alcoholism, drug addiction, suicide
• Rejection of both goals and means, replaced by new ones — rebellion, revolution

All these theories are worthy of attention and further development, with some exceptions; for example, the theory of multiple factors has more drawbacks than advantages. Practically all of them contain rational elements and can be applied in criminology.