For instance, contemporary criminologists make use of a ‘legalistic’ instead of a ‘normative’ description of criminal behavior. A legalistic description of criminal behavior takes as its basis the legal descriptions enclosed in the penal code. The law establishes what is criminal and what is not (Thacher, 2004, 381).
Criminality involves the mechanisms of law-making, law-breaking, and acting in response toward law-breaking behaviors. These three mechanisms construct an integrated series of events. In addition, criminology is a methodical study of the biological, sociological and psychological aspects of criminal behavior (Thacher, 2004). The objective of this paper is to differentiate two of the most widely used criminology theories, sociobiology and attachment theories. The strengths and weaknesses of each of these theories will also be discussed.
Biological accounts concerning criminal behavior were no longer encouraging in the early twentieth century. At this point in time, criminologist started to concentrate on sociological forces toward criminal behavior such as family background, social standing, peer group, and others (Hacking, 2006). The attempt and success of these criminologists was in fact viewed and though to be commonly illogical and unfounded empirically by the leading sociologists at the time. These particular sociologists embraced the idea referred to as ‘biophobia’, which clarified that they intentionally did not pay any attention or thought to biological aspects concerning any effort to understand human nature (Hacking, 2006).
The contemporary research of sociobiology has hence reinvigorated interests in locating a foundation for criminal behavior in the biological aspect. Hence if genetics really manipulate or influence behavior, then it may also be accountable for understanding whether an individual