Atavistic Form

Is criminality a product of biology or the environment? Are criminals born that way? Can you spot them just by looking at their facial features? Cesare Lombroso thought so when he developed his atavistic form explanation for offending.

Forensic scientist, YB - StudySmarter Originals

A historical approach to offending

In 1876, Cesare Lombroso proposed that criminals were ‘genetic throwbacks’ who were primitive and biologically different from the rest of us. He believed that they lacked evolutionary development and that their inability to adapt to society would lead them to commit crimes. He, therefore, thought that crime was a natural tendency rooted in genetics.Today, Lombroso’s work is considered naïve and speculative, but it was important in initiating a discussion about the biological basis of criminality.

What are the atavistic form features?

Lombroso believed that we could recognise criminals by their ‘atavistic features,’ physical characteristics that distinguish them from others, especially the head and face.

Facial atavistic characteristics (specifically those of murderers and sexual deviants) and non-physical atavistic characteristics, YB - StudySmarter Originals

Lombroso’s research

Lombroso reached these conclusions by examining the facial features of hundreds of living or dead Italian convicts (383 dead, 3839 living). He claimed that atavistic form features could determine 40% of criminal acts.

Evaluation of atavistic form

What are the advantages of the atavistic form in psychology? And what about its weaknesses? Let us now evaluate the atavistic form explanation for offending and see what other studies have to say about it.

Strengths

• Contribution to criminology: According to Hollin (1989), Lombroso is the ‘father of modern criminology’. He shifted the discourse from a moral view (as it had always been before) to a scientific view, from ‘weak and evil’ offenders to ‘genetically programmed’ ones. He also heralded the beginning of offender profiling, a significant contribution to the science of criminology.

Weaknesses

• Scientific racism: Many critics, including Matt DeLisi (2012), have pointed out the racist undertones of his work; many of the ‘atavistic traits’ are the typical traits of people of African descent. His references to ‘primitive, savage, uncivilised’ people are also consistent with many eugenicist philosophies of the time.
• Conflicting evidence: In 1913, Charles Goring pursued the same goal as Lombroso. He studied 3000 criminals and 3000 non-criminals and found no evidence that one group had specific facial characteristics that the other group did not.
• Methodology: Lombroso did not compare his criminal sample to a control group of non-criminals, as Goring did. He might have found that his ‘atavistic features’ had disappeared had he done so.
• Confounded findings: Lombroso’s findings may also have been confounded as he studied many criminals who had previously suffered from physiological disorders.
• Causality: There is also a problem with causality. Even if his findings had been significant, who is to say that the atavistic traits cause criminal behaviour? These traits may be due to other factors, such as poverty or poor nutrition.