Lesson 5: 

 Formula of
Crime Causation
MIDTERM
The Normality of Crime
• David Emile Durkheim maintained that criminality is a “normal” factor
rather than a pathological one.
- He indicates that crime is found in all societies, “Crime is normal because a
society exempt from it is utterly impossible”. The “fundamental conditions of
social organization-logically imply it”.
• Durkheim maintains that crime is not only normal for society but that
is necessary.
- Without crime there could be no evolution in law. If society is to progress each
person must be able to express himself.
Theory of the Etiology of Criminal Acts
• “Crime is a product of the individual’s tendencies and the situation of
the moment interacting with his mental resistance. 
• Letting “C” stand for crime, “T” for tendencies, “S” for situation, and
“R” for resistance, we derive the following formula”. C = TSR
• “T” factor is not simply “aggressive tendencies” since they are
present in all men. “T” also refers to aggressive inclinations of an
indirect nature; for instance, projections, rebellious hostility towards
anyone, protest reactions, or excessive motor activity. 
• “S” the situation, is an indeterminate factor in mobilizing the criminal
act. As each person has a unique psychological make-up, it follows
that only he can achieve a particular aim in a given environment.
• R” the resistance to temptation, it is the ability to control one’s
negative emotions, such as bad temperament, anger, etc. Acc to
Abrahamsen, personality reactions in criminals are by nature
comparable to those found in a disease. “He also claims that a higher
incidence of psychosomatic disordersis to be found in the family
constellation of the offender than in the family members of psychotic
or neurotic patients (Bates, 1949)
 Lesson 6:  The Fundamental
Schools of Thought in
Explaining the Causes of Crime
The Classical School
• The Classical School developed in the 18th Century in an attempt to
reform the legal system and to protect the accused against harsh and
arbitrary action on the part of the state.
•  It is founded by Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794). Beccaria was opposed
to the barbaric and arbitrary practices associated with the court
system in England during his time.
• Along with Beccaria who pioneered the Classical School was Jeremy
Bentham (1748-1832), an English philosopher, economist, and
theoretical jurist, in his principle of utilitarianism in which he said,
“Mankind was governed by two sovereign motives, pain and pleasure
and the principle of utility recognized this state of affairs (Duignan,
2018). Bentham’s Hedonistic calculus/ Felicity involved weighing of
pleasure versus pain.
The Neo-Classical School
• This theory modified the doctrine of free will by stating that free will
of men may be affected by other factors and crime is committed due
to some compelling reasons that prevail. 
• These causes are pathology, incompetence, insanity or any condition
that will make it impossible for the individual to exercise free will
entirely.  In the study of legal provisions, this is termed as either
mitigating or exempting circumstances.
Italian/Positivist School
• The term “positivism”, refers to a method of analysis based on the
collection of observable scientific facts.
• Positivists believe that causes of behavior can be measured and
observed.
• It demands for facts and scientific proof, thus, changing the study of
crimes and criminals into scientific approach.
• Positive theorists were the first to claim the importance of looking at
individual difference among criminals. These theorists who
concentrated on the individual structures of a person, stated that
people are passive and controlled, whose behaviors are imposed
upon them by biological and environmental factors.
Cesare Lombroso
• - recognized as the “Father of Modern and Empirical Criminology” due to his
application of modern scientific methods to trace criminal behavior, however, most
of his ideas are now discredited
• - known for the concept of atavistic stigmata (the physical features of creatures at
an earlier stage of development).
•             - he claimed that criminals are distinguishable from non-criminals due to
the presence of atavistic stigmata and crimes committed by those who are born
with certain recognizable heredity traits.
•  - according to his theory, criminals are usually in possession of huge jaws and
strong canine teeth, the arm span of criminals is often greater than their height,
just like that of apes  who use their forearms to push themselves along the ground.
• - other physical stigmata include deviation in head size and shape,
asymmetry of the face, excessive dimensions of the jaw and
cheekbones, eye defects and peculiarities, ears of unusual size, nose
twisted, upturned or flattened in thieves, or aquiline or beaklike in
murderers, fleshy lips, swollen and protruding, and pouches in the
cheek like those of animal’s toes
•             - Lombroso’s work supported the idea that the criminal was a
biologically and physically inferior person 
According to him, there are three (3) classes
of criminals:
• born criminals – individuals with at least five (5) atavistic stigmata
• insane criminals – those who became criminals because of some
brain defect which affected their ability to understand and
differentiate what is right from what is wrong.
• criminaloids - those with makeup of an ambiguous group that
includes habitual criminals, criminals by passion and other diverse
types
Enricco Ferri
• He focused his study on the influences of psychological
factors and sociological factors such as economics, on crimes.
• He believed that criminals could not be held morally responsible
because they did not choose to commit crimes, but rather were
driven to commit crimes by conditions in their lives.
Raffaelle Garofallo
• He treated the roots of the criminals’ behavior not to physical
features but to their psychology equivalent, which he referred to as
moral anomalies.
• He rejected the doctrine of freewill.
• Classified criminals as Murderers, Violent Criminals, Deficient
Criminals, and Lascivious Criminals.
Lesson 7:  Perspectives of
Crime Causation
Classical Perspective
•  Viewed crime as a product of situational forces; that crime is function
of freewill and personal choice.
• Three (3) principles of punishment:
•             Swift – punishment must be swift to be effective.
•             Certain – people must know they will be punished for their
illegal behavior – that they cannot evade the strong arms of the law.
•             Severe – must be severe  enough to outweigh the rewards of
illegal action – severity and proportionality are sometimes at odds
especially since each person is different in terms of what constitutes a
“severe” punishment.
Biological Perspective
• Regarded crime as the product of internal forces. That crime is a
function of chemical, neurological, genetic, personality, intelligence
or mental traits. The focus of the study is mainly individual person
itself. It may answer the question of why a person becomes a
criminal.
Process Perspective
• This perspective claimed that crime is product of socialization or
interaction of one person to another. That crime is a function of
upbringing, learning and control. Parents, teachers, environment,
mass media and peer groups may influence behavior. This concerns
on how a person becomes a criminal.
Conflict Perspective
• Stressed the causes of crime based on economic and political
forces. Crime is a function of competition for limited resources and
power. Law is a tool of the ruling class in order to control the lower
class. It is designed to protect the wealthy people. Crime is politically
defined concept.
Biosocial Perspective
• Seek to explain the onset of antisocial behavior such as aggression
and violence by focusing on the physical qualities of the offenders. It
concentrated mainly on the three areas of focus: biochemical (diet,
genetic, hormones, and environmental
contaminants), neurological (brain damage),
and genetic (inheritance) (Siegel, 2007)
Psychological Perspective
• Expressed that criminal behavior, was the product of “unconscious”
forces operating within a person’s mind. That conflicts occur at
various psychosexual stages of development might impact an
individual’s ability to operate normally as an adult. That if the
aggressive impulse is not controlled, or is repressed to an unusual
degree, some aggression can “leak out” of the unconscious and a
person can engage in random acts of violence (Bartol, 2002)
Lesson 8:  Biosocial Theory
Biosocial Theory
• This theory viewed that both thought and behavior have biological
and social bases. Biosocial theorists believe that it is the interaction
between predisposition and environment that produces criminality.
Three (3) Distinct Areas of Study
1. Biochemical Factors
- Stresses about the relationship between antisocial behavior and
biochemical makeup and that body chemistry can govern behavior and
personality, including levels of aggression and depression. (Siegel et. al,
2007)
1.1 Hormonal Levels
• Another area of biochemical research emphasizes that antisocial
behavior allegedly peaks in the teenage years because hormonal
activity is as its highest level during this period.      Research also
suggests that increased levels of the male androgen testosterone are
responsible for excessive levels of violence among teenage boys.
1.2 Neurological Dysfunction
•  Another concentration of biosocial theory is neurological, or brain
and nervous system, structure of offenders. Studies measures
indicators of system functioning, such as brain waves, heart rate,
arousal levels, skin conductance and attention span, cognitive ability,
and spatial learning, and then compared them to measures of
antisocial behavior. The neuroendocrine system, which controls the
brain chemistry, is the key to understanding violence and aggression.
Imbalance in the central nervous system’s chemical and hormonal
activity has been linked to antisocial behavior and drug abuse (Siegel
et. al, 2007)
2. Neurological Dysfunction
•  Another concentration of biosocial theory is neurological, or brain
and nervous system, structure of offenders. Studies measures
indicators of system functioning, such as brain waves, heart rate,
arousal levels, skin conductance and attention span, cognitive ability,
and spatial learning, and then compared them to measures of
antisocial behavior. The neuroendocrine system, which controls the
brain chemistry, is the key to understanding violence and aggression.
Imbalance in the central nervous system’s chemical and hormonal
activity has been linked to antisocial behavior and drug abuse (Siegel
et. al, 2007)
2.1 Minimal Brain Dysfunction
• It is defined as the damage to the brain itself that causes itself that
causes antisocial behavior injurious to the individual’s lifestyle and
social adjustment. Children who manifest behavior disturbances may
have identifiable neurological deficits, such as damage to the
hemispheres of the brain. One specific type of MBD is Learning
Disability,  a term that has been defined by the National Advisory
Committee on Handicapped Children. Learning disability is
neurological dysfunction that prevents an individual from learning to
his or her potential (Siegel et. al, 2007)
3. Genetic Influences
• Focuses on the idea that individuals who share genes are alike in
personality regardless of how they are reared, whereas rearing
environment induces little or  no personality resemblance. The Father
of Criminology Cesare Lombroso often believed that antisocial
behavior had a genetic basis based on his theory that some people
are “born criminals”. (Carey and DiLalla, 1994)
3.1 Parent-Child Similarities
• A number of studies found out that parental criminality and deviance
do, in fact, powerfully influence delinquent behavior. Donald J. West
and David Farrington made a study and they found out that a
significant number of delinquent youths have criminal fathers. West
and Farrington’s study has been supported by Rochester Youth
Development Study. The latter found an intergenerational continuity
in anti-social behavior: Criminal fathers produce delinquent sons grow
up have delinquent children themselves (Siegel et. al, 2007)
3.2 Sibling and Twin Similarities
• Biosocial theorists have compared the behavior of twins and non-twin
siblings and found out that the twins, who share more genetic
material, are also more similar in their behavior. When comparing
identical monozygotic (MZ) twins with same-sex fraternal dizygotic
(DZ) twins; although the former have an identical genetic makeup, the
latter share only 50% of their genetic combinations. Reviews of twin
studies found that in all cases, MZ twins have delinquent and anti-
social behavior patterns more similar than that of DZ twins (Siegel et.
al, 2007)
3.3 Adoption Studies
• Sarnoff Mednick and Bernard Hutchings forced to conclude based on
their study that genetics played at least some role in creating
delinquent tendencies. Adoptees share many of the behavioral and
intellectual characteristics of their biological parents despite the
social and environmental conditions found in their adoptive homes
(Siegel et. al, 2007)