Individual-Level Attributes or Aggregate Characteristics:

Individual-Level Attributes or Aggregate Characteristics: Which Offers a Better Explanation for Crime

There are a variety of different theories purporting to explain how criminal behavior occurs in society. While these different theories are more sophisticated than the basic nature vs. nurture debates, they do look at whether certain groups are biologically more likely to commit crimes or whether criminality is an individual choice. Each of the theories has merit, and, though it seems unlikely that any single argument can describe criminal behavior on its own, when taken together the theories do a good job of explaining individual and group criminal behavior. In other words, they not only explain why a particular individual might be more or less prone to criminality, but also why criminality is more prevalent in certain areas than in others.

To many theorists, criminal behavior is largely a matter of individual-level attributes, many of them either physiological or genetic. These arguments are interesting, though they do cause some concern among sociologists because of the dangers that have traditionally been associated with suggesting that certain immutable characteristics are highly correlated with criminality, which was one of the underlying arguments in the eugenics movement. This has led to some criminologists arguing that genes could not possibly account for criminal behavior because criminal laws vary from society to society. However, there is a set of core behavior patterns that directly harm other society members, which are criminalized across societies (Ellis & Walsh, 2011). Therefore, one must acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that criminal behavior and the ability to recognize criminal behavior somehow develop in a cross-cultural context. Furthermore, while it is unlikely that an entire genetic group would be more highly disposed to criminal behavior because it would be evolutionarily maladaptive to have an entire group of predators develop, one could see how certain criminal behaviors, such as sexual assault and domestic violence, could have evolutionary precursors.

Furthermore, there is strong evidence that physical characteristics of individuals, which may or may not be genetically predetermined, are correlated with criminal behavior. Lower resting heart rates and damaged prefrontal lobes are associated with criminal behavior; and, in males, higher levels of testosterone are highly correlated with crime; (Rowe, 2011). Furthermore, impulsivity is highly linked to criminality, aggressiveness, and a lack of social responsibility (Caspi et al., 2011). This does not mean that people exhibiting those characteristics are destined to become criminals, but may mean that they are more vulnerable to the influence of criminal communities.

The research certainly supports the notion that some communities engage in greater levels of criminality than other communities. In fact, some communities may be more criminal because they are less committed to conventional values and attitudes, including conformity to the law. (Shaw & McKay, 2011). In fact, variations in community crime rates do not appear to be explainable solely by "the aggregated demographic character-istics of individuals" (Sampson et al., 2011). Instead, social control theories suggest that neighborhoods are somewhat informally self-regulating (Sampson et al., 2011). This lack of criminal self-regulation may stem from a feeling of being disenfranchised, as if the criminal laws have been created without reference to the needs of that community. In fact, in the United States, there is a definite cultural conflict regarding criminal codes (Sutherland & Cressey, 2011). Perhaps the most famous example of this conflict is the differential sentencing for crack and powder cocaine offenses.