Cesare Lombrosos Theory of Criminal Traits

Cesare Lombrosos Theory of Criminal TraitsAbstractCesare Lombrosos (1960) Criminal small-arm led to a new discipline in criminology, placing a yoke between bodily anomalies and discourtesy. Certain attributes were said to be the result of a biologically inferior presence which led to a life of crime (Ellwood, 1912). An observational guinea pig interpreted a publication of home runshots made up of reprehensibles and Psychology rung from Canterbury Christ Church University. Independent t-tests revealed that on that point was no balance between the two groups in terms of physical characteristics and flagitious rating. These findings tie in with previous research in the field (gore, 1972 Saladin, Zalman Breen 1988). comparison THE PREVALENCE OF CRIMINAL TRAITS BETWEEN CONVICTED CRIMINALS AND PSYCHOLOGY STAFFCesare Lombroso (2006) is best cognize as the founder of the discipline turn anthropology the take aim of mental and physical traits associated with the born sad. Lom broso published Criminal Man (2006), a illustrious study in which he attributed distressing behaviour to Atavism, an inherited condition in which offenders demonstrated evolutionary throwbacks to more(prenominal) primitive humans. According to Lombroso (2006) the turn was fundamentally a living anomaly concerned with pathological and atavistic characteristics (Ellwood, 1912). After studying 66 decedent criminals, Lombroso (2006) compiled a list of physical features assumed to be associated with criminal behaviour. Traits include asymmetrical faces and unreasonable body hair. A person was thought to be a criminal if they processed 4 or more traits.Charles B. Goring (1972) subjected 37 of Lombrosos (2006) characteristics to empirical testing and compared 2,348 London convicts with a ensure group of young Englishmen. Goring (1972) found little support for Lombrosos work, instead suggesting criminal behaviour is simply an inherited lack of communal sense. Support for Lombroso comes from a study by Hooton (1939), in which 13,873 male pris matchlessrs were compared with 3,023 males from a general sample. Hooton attributed criminal behaviour to biological inferiority, assigning a spell of features such as sloping foreheads to criminals. Hooton was, til now, criticised for his circular reasoning. Criminals were assumed to be physically mediocre and those features which distinguished criminals from others could be classified as precursors of biological inferiority. unaccompanied a small number of modern studies return tested the family among drawing card and criminal behaviour. Saladin, Zalman and Breen (1988) invited students to judge the physical attractiveness of a picking of male photos. Other students assessed the same photos and judged the likelihood that those pictured would commit a crime. Those rated as less attractive were more likely to commit crime. same results were also found in other related studies (Cavior Howard, 1973 Kurtzberg, 1978) .The current study is building upon the previous contradictory evidence, and much like Goring (1913), the study will focus upon comparing Lombrosos (2006) original anomalies within the criminal and general population. As a result of previous evidence my conjecture states that there will be no difference between Lombrosos (2006) criminal traits amongst convicted criminals and the general population.MethodDesignThe design of the experiment consisted of independent measures as both groups were separate from from severally one other.ParticipantsThere were 30 fragmentiseicipants in get along, 15 were Psychology staff members from Canterbury Christ Church University and the other 15 were convicted criminals.Materials and ApparatusMaterials required for the experiment included the 15 criminal mugshots, 15 staff mugshots and finally a criminal characteristics coding sheet.ProcedureThe mathematical function involved going through each photo and deciding whether each person had Lombros os (2006) original criminal characteristics. These characteristics consisted of asymmetric head, flattened/misshapen nose, large ears, fat lips, enormous jaw, high cheekbones, narrow eyes and excessive contend wrinkles. Each photo was judged upon these criteria and whether they were present or not. The final part involved deciding whether each person was a criminal or not which was based on Lombrosos (2006) ideas that if you perceived more than quatern characteristics then you were a criminal. In terms of ethical considerations the use of photos from the staff members would have required consent as well as the discipline to withdraw from the study at any point.ResultsOverall frequencies for the criminal characteristics set in both sets of photos are given in Table 1. This selective instruction reveals that in terms of the non- symmetrical face and twisted nose characteristics these were label as being present in the staff photos (4 and 8 prison term respectively) more so than for the criminal photos in which they were reported 2 and 6 times. All the other traits were identified more on the criminal photos however enormous jaw and high cheekbones were equally coded for at 7 and 9 times. Table 2 provides data showing the frequencies of the total numbers of criminal characteristics coded for in each group of photos. Both groups receive more total ratings in the middle of the overcome, with the majority coded for 2 or 3 criminal traits. An independent t test yielded t(28) = .756, p .05. The hypothesis was accepted there was no difference between the criminal classification of staff mug shots and criminal mug shots.DiscussionOverall there was no difference between the criminal classification of the staff mugshots and the criminal mugshots which replicates similar findings obtained in studies by Goring (1972) and Kurtzberg et al, (1978). This implies that Lombrosos original ideas and theories about certain characteristics conk outership to criminality hav e been undermined by this study. The data presented in tabular array 2 git be described as normally distributed as the ends of the scale are sparsely occupied however the majority of participants from both groups were coded as having between 2-5 criminal traits. According to Lombrosso a criminal was said to have four or more traits, therefore based on results obtained it can be said that the distribution of seemingly criminal characteristics is actually very normal. One limitation to this study is that it is entirely subjective as one person is judging the photos on whether they are criminal or not based on a set of perceived traits. This may lead to a lack of reliability as the same result cannot be guaranteed if the study is repeated. A further limitation concerning subjectivity is the classification of the criminal traits, for instance what constitutes as enormous when describing the jaw or excessive when labelling skin wrinkles. Further in depth classification is required to engraft whether a particular trait is present. Although the results from this study and others suggest that Lombrosos (2006) method of criminal profiling is out of date, it has led to the use of similar methods using information such as upbringing or substance use to establish whether a person is likely to commit a crime.ReferencesCavior, N., Howard, L. (1973). Facial attractiveness and juvenile delinquency among black and white offenders. Journal Of Abnormal peasant Psychology, 1(2), 202-213. doi10.1007/bf00916114.Ellwood, C. (1912). Lombrosos Theory of Crime. Journal Of The American Institute Of Criminal constabulary And Criminology, 2(5), 716. doi10.2307/1132830.Goring, C. (1972). The English convict. Montclair, N.J. Patterson Smith.Hooton, E. A., (1939).Crime and the Man, Cambridge, Massachusetts Harvard University Press.Kurtzberg, R. L. (1978). Plastic Surgery on Offenders. In N. Johnston L. Savitz (Eds.), Justice and Corrections, New York Wiley.Lombroso, C., Gibson, M., Rafter, N. (2006). Criminal man. Durham, NC Duke University Press.Saladin, M., Zalman S., Breen, L. (1988). Perceived Attractiveness and Attributions of Criminality What Is beauteous Is Not Criminal,Canadian Journal of Criminology30(3), 205-215.Table 1This table illustrates the present frequencies of each criminal characteristic as well as the total number of those classified as criminals in the staff and criminal mugshot categories. compositors case Nose Ears Lips Jaw Cheekbones Eyes Wrinkles CriminalCriminal 2 6 9 7 7 9 8 3 6stave 4 8 6 2 7 9 3 4 4Table 2Listed in this table are the total numbers of criminal traits identified for each typeface of mugshot, ranging between 1-6 characteristics. Number of characteristics present after coding 123456Criminal 045321Staff 164220