Lombroso Aimed to Be a True Adherent

Lombroso aimed to be a true adherent of the positivist theory in constructing his criminologist theory. The way that he used positivism however shows how empiricism -- or true science as it is otherwise known -- can be misused and can lead to erroneousness results.

Positivism is the orientation that attempts to follow empirical or sensory experience only and eschew metaphysical or spiritualist renderings. The irony of this was, at least in Lombroso's case, that his rendering of positivism when combined with criminology took him straight into metaphysics.

(This wasn't the only case where Lombroso's scientific manipulations led him into the mystical realm. Later on, he wrote books on spirits and seances claiming these to have empirical base too).

Cesare Lombroso (1835 -1909) saw crime as being an inherited or genetic feature that could be recognizable by experts according to certain physiognomy, or physical defects, that characterized someone as being atavistic or savage.

Criminals, he claimed were a throwback to an earlier, more primitive, Neanderthal form of man and this could be glimpsed in physical forms such as sloping forehead, ears of unusual size, asymmetry of the face, prognathism, excessive length of arms, asymmetry of the cranium, and other "physical stigmata." All of these made them modern savages and throwbacks to an earlier form of animal-human.

According to Lombroso's reasoning, therefore, criminals were not to blame for their behavior; they were born so. In fact, given this reasoning, there was little to prevent one from becoming a criminal and treatment or cure was minimal if at all. The 'creature' was, after all, inherently, destined to become so by some eevolutionary error of nature.

Specific criminals, such as thieves, rapists, and murderers, had specific physical characteristics, and all criminals (being a throwback to animals) lacked the feelings (such s impression of pain) and sentiments (such as shame) that 'normal' human beings possessed.

Lombroso emerged with a host of criminals. There were the 'born criminals' as well as the infrequent criminals (criminaloids ), criminals by passion, moral imbeciles, and criminal epileptics.

For him, certain predisposing factors, namely the organic and genetic, converged with others, such as environment, opportunity, and economy, to produce the habituated criminal.

The irony of all of this is that Lombroso's conclusions came from punctilious and exact scientific research that was conducted according to sensory / reality processes only. They were clinical and descriptive, with precise details of skull dimension and other measurements. Although they differed form contemporary established science in that they did not employ statistical comparisons of criminals and noncriminals, he nonetheless realized the dangers of subjectivity and endeavored to be as empirical as possible in his founding of his derelictions.

Lombrosos's work was nothing new. Even prior to Lombroso, Giovanni Battista Della Porta and Swiss theologian and physiologist Johann Casper Lavater both argued that physical straits such as ears, eyes, eyebrows, nose, lips, and other physical characteristics could decipher individuals as criminal (Pfohl, 1994, p. 105). What Lombroso did was to establish this on a positive basis by finding 'evidence for this in criminals. Where Lombroso erred (at least in one of the many ways) was that he started off with a hypothesis and selected samples to prove his hypothesis. He failed to consider alternate examples. This is an excellent instance of where one can employ scientific methodology to the fullest, yet err, since, even without intend to, one is subjective thereby corrupting data.

Lombroso's conclusions were generally rejected in Europe but it may have been the traditional and historical proclivity towards crime in the U.S.A., that made the U.S.A. one of the few countries where his theories were accepted at least for a long while.