Biological vs. Psychological Crime Explanations

Section 1: Introduction

Three sections are included in this report. The first section critically evaluates literature on serial killers. The second section evaluates biological and psychological approaches to understanding criminal behaviour. The third section discusses victim blaming.

Section 2: Literature regarding serial killers: A critical evaluation

At the outset, the term serial killing may be explained as killing by the same person of three or more persons, where the characteristics of murders may remain the same across the killings while the killings are spaced out over a period of time (Flowers, 2012). This is different from mass murder or spree killing which happens at one time. Serial killers exhibit certain characteristics, predominantly mental illness and psychopathy, which also distinguish them from the aforesaid (Flowers, 2012).

The literature on serial killers suffers from a common issue of portrayal of serial killers as romanticised or sensationalised criminals, with an emphasis on their intelligence (Jeffrey Dahmer) or their charisma (Ted Bundy); whereas in many cases serial killers are psychopaths or sociopaths, which are conditions that need to be studied in more detail with reference to psychological explanation of their crimes. Mass media is to be blamed more for this, as it sensationalises serial killings and portrays serial killers in a certain way because crimes by serial killers are more interesting because and newsworthy than the others (Greer, 2007). Hodgkinson, et al. (2017) critique the literature on serial killers and they point out that the literature is dominated by biographical accounts of serial killers and there is very little academic literature on serial killers leading to a highly reductionist and stereotypical account of serial killers in literature. They argue that there are media driven misconceptions on serial killers that have not found explanations in academic literature (Hodgkinson, et al., 2017).

Section 3: Evaluation of biological and psychological explanations to crime

The biological explanation of criminal behaviour stresses on the link between genetics or biological factors and criminal behaviour of an individual, emphasising that criminal behaviour and a propensity for crime is biological or genetic. Cesare Lombroso and the latter theorists on quasi-biological explanations of criminal behaviour are contentious to some extent. The controversy is that biological explanations stress that criminal tendencies are biological or inherited, with earlier explanations stressing on physical features for predicting criminal behaviour and contemporary explanations also including biochemical and neurophysiological conditions, and genetic inheritance (Ugwoke 2016). The biological explanations are also controversial because these became the basis for racial profiling of criminals. Biological approaches can also be challenged because these lead to stereotyping, profiling, and genetic screening which can lead to legislations on pre-emptive incarceration (Andrews, 1999). Nevertheless, there is evidence in recent research that genetic explanations of crime are justified (Barnes, Beaver, & Boutwell, 2011).

Psychological explanations of criminal behaviour emphasise on psychological conditions that lead to psychological or personality disorders, which may be linked to criminal behaviour (Okada, et al., 2018). Psychological explanations focus on personal disorders, cognitive processes, and personality characteristics (Carrabine, et al., 2014). There are three theories that form part of psychological explanations to crime, including psychodynamic theory which relates to the early childhood experience as influence factors for criminal behaviour (Flanagan, 2016); behavioural theory, which relates to social learning; and cognitive theory, which relates to the way in which people perceive and mentally represent the world around them. Psychological approaches can be inadequate to explain crime because these approaches fail to ignore larger social forces, that may lead to criminality and rather focus on clinically based identification of criminals. Social factors too may be responsible for violent behaviour in a person, irrespective of his psychological attributes.

Section 4: Victim blaming

The victim precipitation theory considers the reasons why the victim was victimised with a perspective on the blame that can be attached to the victim or his activities that led to victimisation (Ugwudike, 2015). Victimisation theories have focused on vulnerable victims such as women, the aged, children, and persons with mental illnesses, who are unable to control factors that increase their vulnerability to crime (Fisher & Lab, 2010, p. 338). Victimisation theories include ‘Lifestyle exposure theory’ and ‘Routine activities theory’ which focus on the factors that increase victimisation (Fisher & Lab, 2010).

Feminist criminology theorists criticise victim precipitation approach as it overlooks the victimisation of female rape victims (Ugwudike, 2015, p. 142). The blame culture is premised on the blame that is attached to the victims for their own victimisation. In rape cases in particular, victim blaming is prominent and to some extent institutionalised as exemplified by the ‘Ipswich rape trial’ in which the trial judge held the victim was liable for contributory negligence as she was hitchhiking at the time, and moreover observed that the trial was “a tragedy for the defendant” (Muncie & Wilson, 2013, p. 110). The ‘Ipswich rape trial’ is an extreme but not uncommon example of victim blaming.

Section 5: Conclusion

This report concludes that the literature on serial killers is reductionist and stereotypical, driven more by mass media than academic literature. The report also discusses the biological and psychological explanations of criminal behaviour, concluding that there is some support for biological (genetic) explanation of crimes. The report finds that victim blaming impacts victims of rape negatively.

Bibliography

Andrews, L., 1999. Behavioral Genetics: the Clash of Culture and Biology. In: R. Carson & M. Rothstein, eds. Predicting and punishing antisocial acts: how the criminal justice system might use behavioral genetics. s.l.:Johns Hopkins University Press, Ba.

Barnes, J., Beaver, K. M. & Boutwell, B. B., 2011. Examining the Genetic Underpinnings to Moffitt's Developmental Taxonomy: A Behavior Genetic Analysis. Criminology, 49(4), p. 923.

Fisher, B. & Lab, S., 2010. Encyclopedia of Victimology and Crime Prevention. New York: Sage Publications.

Flanagan, L. M., 2016. Object relations theory: Inside out and outside. In: Psychodynamic clinical theory and psychopathology in contemporary multicultural contexts. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 118-157.

Hodgkinson, S., Prins, H. & Stuart-Bennett, J., 2017. Monsters, madmen… and myths: A critical review of the serial killing literature. Aggression and violent behavior , Volume 34 , pp. 282-289.

Okada, D., Maguire, M. & Sardina, A., 2018. Critical Issues in Crime and Justice: Thought, Policy, and Practice. London: SAGE Publications.

Ugwudike, P., 2015. An Introduction to critical criminology. Bristol: Policy Press.