Biological and Sociological Theories of Crime

Biological and Sociological Theories of Crime

1. Thesis Statement

Four theories are often associated with each crime that occurs in every society. These theories: classical, biological, sociological, and interactionist, attempt to explain the reasons for the occurrence of a crime and the circumstances that might have contributed to the ill behavior. Unlike in the classical theory, where it is often believed that crime results from an individual’s free will to do evil, in the interactionist theory, a person becomes a criminal by associating with other people who commit a crime.

The biological and sociological theories also have their fundamental basis for explaining crime and criminal behaviors. Concerning the Karl Karisen’s crime, this paper would briefly give an overview of the offense, relate it to one of the theories, and provide another theory that cannot be used to explain the various murder cases committed by the offender. It is, however, critical to note that only the biological and the sociological theories would be incorporated into the discussion with little regard being given to the classical and interactionist theories.

2. Description of the Crime

After being sentenced to prison in 2013 for the murder of his son, Karl Karisen has equally added a 15-year jail term for allegedly planning, initiating, and implementing the death of his wife on 1^st January 1991 at their home in Murphy. During the end of his wife, detectives revealed that the accused had physically locked her in the bathroom and intentionally started off the fire. He tactically managed to save his three children, leaving his wife to perish in the blaze.

Friends and eyewitnesses reported that Karl Karisen remained emotionless despite the tragedy that had hit his family. Further investigations indicated that the accused had, 19 days before the incident, taken out life insurance on his spouse. It was also found out that the insurance policy had reimbursed the accused several days later, after concluding that the fire incident was accidental. Ideally, the summation of all the evidence convinced the jury that the accused had been an active participant in the murder of his wife; and hence he deserved 15-year imprisonment based on the law..

In the second case involving the murder of his son Levi, the prosecutors alleged that the accused had lured the deceased underneath a truck and intentionally knocked it off its jack, causing the young man to suffocate to death. The prosecution team further uncovered that the accused had, 17 days before the incident, taken out an insurance policy on his children. Following the event, the insurer had paid him $700,000.

In both cases, the accused had pleaded guilty to the murder charges of his wife and son. It seems that Karl Karisen intended to enrich himself through insurance reimbursements at the expense of the lives of his family members. He, unfortunately, failed to remember that all his plans and actions translated to crime and would potentially earn him several years behind bars.

3. The Biological Theory of Crime

The biological theory of crime began in the 19^th century when an Italian criminologist and physician, Cesare Lombroso, created the idea of the born atavistic criminal after being influenced by phrenology, an emerging medical specialty. Lombroso was the first criminologist to observe and measure an individual’s criminal case while trying to trace the origin of the crime. Most criminologists often regard him as the father of their criminal science (Ellwood, 2016).

During the conceptual and practical development of the biological theory of crime, Lombroso is said to have been influenced by the correlations he found between crime and the genetic background of an individual. He, however, assumed that social and environmental factors could equally propagate and precipitate criminal activities (Ellwood, 2016).

Lombroso claimed that a criminologist could easily distinguish between a criminal and a non-criminal by examining and evaluating a number of psychological and biological features. From the evidence he had gathered, he concluded that some people were born with a propensity to commit a crime. He, therefore, believed that a person could inherit criminality the same way other traits were genetically passed down the generation.

Ideally, he noted that physical defects could be used to identify criminals and confirmed them as being savage or atavistic (Ellwood, 2016). Lombroso’s biological theory of crime can relatively explain criminal activities associated with theft, murder, sexual abuse, homicide, violence, and drug abuse. The argument is, however, insignificant when dealing with traffic offenses and high tech crimes such as fraud, bribery, embezzlement, identity theft, and forgery.

The four levels of analysis that exist include the international system, the nation, the bureaucracy, and the individual. The biological theory of crime uses the latter approach, individual analysis, to seek evidence between crime and genetics. In order to examine the correlation between the two variables (crime and genetics), the regression model is often used.

For the given crime, the genetic makeup of Karl Karisen, his father, grandfather, and the forefathers could be analyzed and mapped onto to the criminal activities that they ever took part in. Unfortunately, the article has failed to give any criminal history of the offender’s family, and we, therefore, conclude that the biological theory of crime is unable to explain the murder of Karisen’s wife and son.

4. Sociological theory of crime

The idea to develop sociology and, by extension, the sociological theory of crime began in the 18^th century after human species drastically embraced industrialization, urbanization, and democracy. The privatization of property amidst these changes had led to a rise in criminal offenses and prompted the western thinkers to develop a way of explaining the new behavior. Essentially, the theory has remained viable until today, and it’s the most suitable to justify the murder of Karisen’s wife and son by the accused.

Unlike the biological theory, which assumed that environmental and social factors played little role in propagating crime, the sociological approach is fundamentally based on the two conditions and assumes that genetics and crime are unrelated (Griffiths et al., 2017). The proposers of the theory believe that crime is a product of social, environmental conditions. According to them, human behavior is often catalyzed by weak, broken bonds with the family and society; and like Karl Karisen, people commit criminal activities because they believe that’s the only means to boost their financial and social conditions.

The sociological theory of crime can relatively explain criminal activities associated with theft, murder, violence, drug trafficking, traffic offenses, and high tech crimes such as fraud, bribery, embezzlement, identity theft, and forgery. The theory is, however, insignificant when dealing with sexual abuse, homicide, and terrorism (Griffiths et al., 2017). The given case of Karl Karisen is perhaps an ideal example of a situation that the sociological theory can explain. The accused committed murder to receive financial reimbursements from the insurance company. He wanted to be socially elevated at the expense of the lives of his wife and children.

When seeking evidence to back up their claims for the sociological theory of crime, sociologists often conduct statewide analysis using the regression model. For instance, they could examine the relationship between poverty and crime from various communities. For the case of Karl Karisen, the researchers would look into the economic and social status of the accused to correlate with his decision to take up his family members’ lives in order to be paid by an insurer.

It is essential to note the speed at which technology is revolutionizing everything, and even criminal offenses are likely to become more sophisticated than we see today. The present theories of crime would possibly become incapacitated and might fail to explain the high tech crimes. It is, therefore, necessary for the theories to be redrafted into a more comprehensive one.

References

Ellwood, C. A. (2016). Lombroso’s theory of crime. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 716-723.

Griffiths, A. W., Richards, B. W., Zaremba, J., Abramowicz, T., & Stewart, A. (2017). Psychological and sociological investigation of XYY prisoners. Nature, 227(5255), 290-292.

Henshel, R. L., & Silverman, R. A. (2019). Perception and criminal process. Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 33-47.

Jensen, K. T. (2020) Man in prison for killing son for insurance money convicted of also killing wife for insurance money. Newsweek. Retrieved from www.newsweek.com