1
Chapter 5: Discuss the development of trait theory?
Cesare Lombroso was an Italian physician and criminologist who developed theories
about the criminals. Lombroso developed the theory about “born criminal”. He came up with the
idea that the “criminal have physical or mental traits that make them different and abnormal”
(Siegel, 127). Today, his theory is regarded as historical curiosities, not scientific fact. He
assumed that biological cause could just as easily have resulted from environment or upbringing.
They all believe that it was all biological so they dismissed the idea of human trait can also be
responsible for antisocial behavior. It wasn’t till 1975, when Edmund O. Wilson published his
book call Sociobiology: The New Synthesis.
Sociobiology in the view that human behavior is motivated by inborn biological urges to
survive and preserve the species. Sociobiology discuss that: Behavioral traits are shaped by both
inherited traits and the environment; Biological and genetic conditions affect how social
behaviors are learned and perceived; Behavior is determined by the need to ensure survival of
offspring and replenishment of the gene pool; Biological, environment, and learning are mutually
interdependent factors.
Sociobiology assumes that while social behavior is genetically transmitted, it adapts to
and is shaped by existing environment conditions. Some criminologists conclude that personal
traits must be what separates the deviant members of society from the nondeviant. The behaviors
are believed to be controlled by traits that are present at birth or developed soon afterwards. Even
though some people who have these traits won’t commit crime, but given the equivalent
environmental conditions those who possess the suspect traits will be most likely to commit
crimes according to trait theory.
2
Chapter 6: Explain the views of Shaw and McKay
Shaw and McKay traced social disorganization to conditions endemic to the urban
areas that were the only places the newly arriving poor could afford to live, in particular, a high
rate of turnover in the population (residential instability) and mixes of people from different
cultural backgrounds (ethnic diversity). Shaw and McKay’s analyses relating delinquency rates
to these structural characteristics established key facts about the community correlates of crime
and delinquency, and their work remains useful today as a guide for efforts to address crime and
delinquency at the community level. Shaw and McKay focused on social institutions,
educational, law enforcement, business, social services, healthcare, and religious entities rather
than on individual perpetrators and their social characteristics. Shaw and McKay argued that
social institutions in Zone Two–type locales are too disadvantaged and disorganized to perform
their major social function of training or socializing individuals to be law-abiding members of
the community.
Shaw and McKay noted that neighborhoods with the highest crime rates have at least
three common problems, physical dilapidation, poverty, and higher level of ethnic and culture
mixing. Shaw and McKay claimed that delinquency was not caused at the individual level, but is
a normal response by normal individuals to abnormal conditions. Shaw and McKay discovered
that there were three (3) reasons: residential instability/mobility, racial/ethnic heterogeneity and
poverty. Residential instability/mobility was defined as individuals having no commitment to
their locale since they moved frequently and intended to leave the area as soon as possible.
Racial, cultural, and language barriers were erected because of racial/ethnic heterogeneity to
such an extent that residents isolated themselves from dissimilar community members in small
pockets of minority areas. In consequence, they forfeited the meaningful interactions that might
have led to solutions to overarching community problems such as crime. Finally, because of
poverty due to a low tax base and restricted local resources, community members did not have
the resources to solve their social problems, and residents continued to seek housing in less
disorganized residential zones. Poverty itself does not cause crime, according to Shaw and
McKay, but it does facilitate it due to a lack of the resources necessary to eradicate criminal
