Comparing the biological and social explanations of criminality

Compare the Biological and Social explanations of criminality 10 marks

This is a question in the exam that you must know how to answer very well (for an A* grade). You need to outline both the theories, provide evidence using the key studies that you have learnt about (explain their aim, procedure, findings and results) then evaluate both the studies and come to a reasonable conclusion.

Planning the answer:  Model Answer:

The Biological explanation of criminality states that we inherit the genes that cause criminal behaviour.

Theilgaard’s 1984 study wanted to see that if criminals had a particular gene that could be responsible for their behaviour. She took blood samples from over 20 000 men born in the 1940s and performed blood tests. She found two chromosome abnormalities, an XXY chromosome and an XYY chromosome pattern. XYY and XXY males were less intelligent and more aggressive than normal men. This could be evidence for a criminal gene if aggression is a sign for criminality.

Some more proof of this would be that criminal behaviour runs in some families. Adoption studies show how crime could be inherited. These look at relatives that are adopted at a young age, meaning that they share the same genes but not the same environment. He looked at how many of the adopted children had criminal records compared to their biological and adoptive parents. He found that adopted children with criminal records for property theft also had biological fathers with criminal convictions even though they did not raise them. Mednick conducted a study of 14,427 adopted children in 1984.

The social theory of criminal behaviour focuses on how we are made criminal. Being brought up in a family that makes criminal behaviour more likely.

Madon’s study aimed to see if a parent’s expectation of their child’s drinking habits would become a reality. If parents thought that their child would drink a lot of alcohol, will this lead to them actually drinking more? She questioned 115 children aged between 12 and 13 and their parents. Parents were asked to guess how much alcohol their child regularly drank or would drink over the coming year. A year later, the children were asked about how much alcohol they actually consumed. The results showed that the children who drank the most alcohol were the ones that were predicted to have a greater use of alcohol. Therefore, a parent’s prediction of their child’s alcohol use was very accurate. This was concluded that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy because what the parent expected came true. This shows that a parent’s belief can have a massive influence on a child’s behaviour.