The biological theory of criminology is based upon the idea that offenders within the criminal justice system are genetically and physiologically different from those who are non-offenders. This theory was founded by Ceasere Lombroso who said that an individual was ultimately born to be a criminal, or that a person inherited certain traits that made them more susceptible to engage in violent behaviors. Moreover, Lombroso rejected the Classical School of Criminology, which claimed that people have their own free will towards making certain decisions. Lombroso represented the Positivist School of Criminology, which utilizes scientific analysis and research as a means of describing criminal behavior. Since the introduction of the Positivist School,
…show more content…
Additionally, Tihonnen et. al (2015) wanted to associate further genes by examining HTR2B (a protein coding gene that is responsible for certain heart-related diseases). Tihonnen et al. (2015) examined two different cohort categories including: Crime and the Healthy cohorts. Within the Crime cohort, all of the subjects came from 19 various prisons around Finland (n=794 inmates) and there were three groups that stemmed from it including: non-violent offenders (n=215), violent offenders (n=538), and extremely violent offenders (n=84). To be considered a “non-violent” offender the individuals had to engage in crimes such as drunk driving or drug charges to land themselves in prison; whereas, “violent” criminals had to commit only one act of murder, manslaughter, homicide, battery, etc. and “extremely violent” offenders had more than 10 counts of these acts on their records. Additionally, it was calculated that the 84 offenders in the extremely violent cohort had committed a total of 1154 attempted murders, homicides, or battery charges (M=13, range- …show more content…
(2004) was able to discover a difference between offenders and the control groups (p=.01) with the offenders having 14% lower mean activity at the MAO gene. Furthermore, there was no significant difference found between the prison personnel and the healthy persons not associated with any sort of prison environment. With this, the researchers were able to merge the prison personnel and the healthy individuals into one control group that served as a comparison against the offenders. Also, they did several tests among all of the subjects including Impulse Control, Past Feelings and Acts of Violence, and the Suicide Risk Scales. Skondra et al. (2004) determined there to be no significant correlation between these scales and MAO
Additionally, Tihonnen et. al (2015) wanted to associate further genes by examining HTR2B (a protein coding gene that is responsible for certain heart-related diseases). Tihonnen et al. (2015) examined two different cohort categories including: Crime and the Healthy cohorts. Within the Crime cohort, all of the subjects came from 19 various prisons around Finland (n=794 inmates) and there were three groups that stemmed from it including: non-violent offenders (n=215), violent offenders (n=538), and extremely violent offenders (n=84). To be considered a “non-violent” offender the individuals had to engage in crimes such as drunk driving or drug charges to land themselves in prison; whereas, “violent” criminals had to commit only one act of murder, manslaughter, homicide, battery, etc. and “extremely violent” offenders had more than 10 counts of these acts on their records. Additionally, it was calculated that the 84 offenders in the extremely violent cohort had committed a total of 1154 attempted murders, homicides, or battery charges (M=13, range- …show more content…
(2004) was able to discover a difference between offenders and the control groups (p=.01) with the offenders having 14% lower mean activity at the MAO gene. Furthermore, there was no significant difference found between the prison personnel and the healthy persons not associated with any sort of prison environment. With this, the researchers were able to merge the prison personnel and the healthy individuals into one control group that served as a comparison against the offenders. Also, they did several tests among all of the subjects including Impulse Control, Past Feelings and Acts of Violence, and the Suicide Risk Scales. Skondra et al. (2004) determined there to be no significant correlation between these scales and MAO