Most criminological theory courses will typically discuss at some point the biological influences of crime. However, more often these discussions will start and end with reference to Cesare Lombroso, who wrote the book “The Criminal Man,” where he described that criminals all appear to have a similar physical morphology and they would display specific “atavisms” to indicate their propensity to crime. This research was later debunked, but at its time it helped to spur on the debate for the eugenics movement—a political movement that took off in the early 1900s that justified the euthanizing or sterilization of the developmentally delayed, criminal, and mentally ill. Much of this history is often brought up by individuals within criminology to argue against the adoption of biological perspectives of crime.

However, this area of research did not stop at Cesare Lombroso, and much of this research has already been widely accepted into other fields. As such, the same old arguments against incorporating biological science into the field today may simply be misguided and potentially flawed due to misconceptions of the role played by biology, and much of the fear mongering may be misguided as fundamentally misunderstanding the strength of our legal institutions in this country to protect individuals from discrimination and unequal treatment. There will not be another eugenics movement. The time for that has past. So, isn’t it about time for the field of criminology to get over this and start incorporating biological science into criminological theory and in our curriculum? As such, this article looks at three specific areas of biological research, regarding genetic influences, brain and neurochemical influences, and neonatal influences, to suggest a few ways that biology can be incorporated into our understanding of crime.