If criminal behavior were merely a choice, the crime rates would more likely be evenly spread. However, when European researchers started to calculate crime rates in the nineteenth century, some places consistently had more crime from year to year. These results indicated that criminal behavior must be influenced by something other than choice and must be related to other factors.

Positivism means using scientific research and evidence to make society better. Ultimately, positivist criminology sought to identify other causes of criminal behavior beyond choice based on measurement, objectivity, and causality (Hagan, 2018). Early positivist theories speculated that there were criminals and noncriminals and hoped to identify what causes made criminals.

In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, which outlined his observations of natural selection. A few years later, he applied his observations to humans in Descent of Man (1871), where he said that some people might be “evolutionary reversions” to an early stage of man. Although he never wrote about criminal behavior, others borrowed Darwin’s ideas and applied them to crime.

Biological and Psychological Positivism

Biological and psychological theories suggest that there are inherent differences between criminals and noncriminals, and these differences can be uncovered through scientific study. Many early theories also embraced hard determinism, which suggests that certain traits predispose individuals to criminal behavior.

Cesare Lombroso, a medical doctor in Italy, had a revelation while conducting autopsies on Italian prisoners. He observed that many of these individuals displayed physical characteristics that he believed were distinct from those of law-abiding citizens. Lombroso theorized that these differences were inherited biologically. In 1876, influenced by Darwin’s notion of evolutionary reversions, Lombroso wrote “The Criminal Man,” proposing that a third of all offenders were “born criminals” who represented throwbacks in human evolution.

Lombroso outlined a range of physical features that he believed distinguished criminals from the “normal” population. These included asymmetrical facial features, ears resembling those of monkeys, large lips, a receding chin, a twisted nose, long arms, skin wrinkles, and more. Lombroso claimed that he could identify criminals solely based on their physical appearance. Although his theory was later widely discredited, it serves as an early example of attempting to scientifically explain criminal behavior.

Furthermore, Lombroso’s work has been criticized for its underlying assumptions of biological determinism and its perpetuation of harmful stereotypes. This theory also reflects a historical context where racism and discrimination influenced scientific thinking, as Lombroso’s ideas suggested that certain physical traits were indicative of criminality, often targeting marginalized groups.

Atavistic features image

Many years after Lombroso’s theory, Charles Goring added mental deficiencies to the discussion of criminal behavior. He believed there were differences in physical and mental traits among people, leading to the Intelligence Era in biological positivism. Alfred Binet, creator of the IQ Test, thought intelligence could change over time.

Unfortunately, in the past, some believed intelligence was fixed. Psychologist H. H. Goddard misused IQ tests to categorize people based on perceived intelligence. This led to harmful practices like sterilization of those deemed “low intelligence.” We must exercise extreme caution when trying to determine the origins of criminal behavior. Even intelligence measurement “tests” can be biased and cause harm when used incorrectly.

So what shapes human behavior? Is it inherited? Influenced by culture? Or shaped by the environment? Research doesn’t have all the answers, but studies suggest both biology and environment influence behavior. Sociopaths and psychopaths don’t have a distinct criminal personality, but traits like impulsivity and low empathy are linked to criminal behavior. However, it’s a combination of traits, not just one, that increases the likelihood of criminal activities.

In understanding criminal behavior, it’s important to recognize biases and complexities. Human actions are influenced by biology, personality, and social factors, making it difficult to pinpoint exact causes. Addressing biases like racism and ableism is crucial in studying and interpreting these issues.

The Chicago School

Biological and psychological positivism focuses on finding differences between people who commit crimes and those who don’t. Meanwhile, the Chicago School theories aimed to understand why crime occurs in certain places. Back in the 1920s and 30s, the University of Chicago led the way in studying human ecology, which looks at how humans interact with their environment. Robert Park likened cities to living organisms, saying they’re like big communities where people live and interact, much like plants and animals in ecosystems. Ernest Burgess came up with the concentric zone theory, which explains how cities expand outward from the center where businesses are located.

Concentric Zones image

In 1942, Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, who had studied under Ernest Burgess, started mapping the addresses of young males who were sent to juvenile court because of crime. They noticed that crime wasn’t spread out evenly across the whole city. They found that the most crime happened in an area called the transition zone. They saw three main differences in this area compared to others.

First, the transition zone wasn’t planned for houses, so homes were mixed in with factories and there weren’t many places like parks or stores nearby. Many buildings were also in bad shape and empty, which made fewer people want to live there. Second, the people living there were different too. There were more immigrants and African American families, and a lot of people moved in and out of the area frequently. Third, there were big differences in how much money people had. In the transition zone, more people needed government help, rent was cheaper, and fewer families owned their homes. This area also had more problems like sickness and poor mental health.

Shaw and McKay thought that all these things made it hard for the community to stay organized. This meant that important groups like families, schools, churches, and the government couldn’t agree on what was right and wrong, which made it tough for people to feel connected to each other. Without strong connections, especially for young people, it was easier for crime to happen.

In short, Shaw and McKay were some of the first to say that where you live and the community you’re in can affect whether you turn to crime.

Licenses and Attributions for Positivist Criminology

Open Content, Shared Previously

“Positivist Criminology” is adapted from “5.6. Positivist Criminology, 5.7 Biological and Psychological Positivism, and 5.8. The Chicago School” by Brian Fedorek in SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System by Alison S. Burke, David Carter, Brian Fedorek, Tiffany Morey, Lore Rutz-Burri, and Shanell Sanchez, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Modifications by Sam Arungwa, Megan Gonzalez, and Trudi Radtke, revisions by Roxie Supplee, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, include significant rewording for clarity and DEI.

Figure 5.5. I precursori di Lombrso is in the Public Domain.

Figure 5.6. Burgess Model is in the Public Domain, adapted by Trudi Radtke.