Individual positivism, in very general terms begins with the assumption that the ‘causes’ of crime can be found within the individual and emphasises that criminals are profoundly different from non-criminals (Bradley & Walters, 2011). The basic features of biological positivism include the use of the scientific method, and positivism was seen as the scientific study of crime and criminality (Bradley & Walters, 2011). Positivism sought scientific proof and thus it employed scientific methods to study the cause of crime (Moyer, 2001). Another feature was the doctrine of determinism, positivists argued that offenders did not freely choose to commit crime but instead it was determined and individuals were driven into crimes beyond their control by different factors within the individual (Newburn, 2012). In the case of individual biological positivism, these factors were thought to be exclusively biological, and it was argued that criminality was an inherited trait (Bradley & Walters, 2011). Another feature included the focus on the actor and not on the act, that is, a focus on the criminal rather than the crime. Positivism involved a focus on the criminal actor rather than the criminal act itself (Bradley & Walters, 2011). Treatment not punishment, was another feature, as crime is the result of factors beyond the individual’s control, and so the criminal cannot be viewed as responsible, the …show more content…
The basic features of positivism include the use of the scientific method, the doctrine of determinism, focus of the criminal (actor) and not the crime (act) and treatment not punishment. Some new ideas that came from biological positivism included the concepts of atavism, physical stigmata and body types. Furthermore, criticisms of biological positivism include the failure to recognise environmental factors, determinism and the denial of freewill, and differentiation. Biological positivism is a historical theory of criminology which emerged some time ago, however a lot of ideas of biological positivism, such as atavism and physical stigmata are seen as simple and naïve today, though, nevertheless biological positivism has made significant impacts on criminology to this