Theories based on biological factors and criminal behavior have always been slightly ridiculous to me. Biological theories place an excessive emphasis on the idea that individuals are “born badly” with little consideration for the many other factors that play a role in this behavior. Criminal behavior can be learned throughout life, but there is insufficient evidence to show that crime is a hereditary trait. In the article Born to Be Bad, Lanier describes the initial belief in biological theories as distinctive predispositions that under particular conditions will lead an individual to commit criminal acts. (Lanier, p. 92) Biological criminologists are expected to study the “criminal” rather than the act itself. This goes as far as studying physical characteristics, such as body type, eyes, and head shape or size. “Because criminals were less developed, Lombroso believed they could be identified by physical stigmata or visible physical anomalies… characteristics such as facial asymmetry; extra nipples, toes, or fingers; huge jaws; handle-shaped or sensitive ears; insensitivity to pain; sharp eyesight; and so on." (Lanier. P. 94). It baffles me that physical characteristics have ever been considered a reliable explanation of criminal behavior. Comparing one's characteristics to criminal behavior is not only stereotypical, but also highly unreliable. More contemporary biological theories have since developed However, for the most part it is still almost impossible to prove true; for example, the genetic theory of crime in fraternal and identical twins genetically inherited trait are more prone to criminality than twins or fraternal siblings because of the... middle of paper... twice as many will engage in criminal behavior... biological factors are said to increase the likelihood that an individual will engage in criminal behavior criminals when these factors interact with physiological or social factors.” (Bernard, Snipes, Gerould, p. 55) In contrast, Emile Durkheim argued that crime is a functional part of society; each society has its own rates and types of crimes. Durkheim stated: “What is normal, simply, is the existence of crime, provided that it reaches and does not exceed, for each social type, a certain level, which is perhaps not impossible to fix in accordance with the previous rules.” (Durkheim, p. 61) Durkheim did not see crime as something habitual or as a symptom of a sick society. I agree with Durkheim's opinion on crime and society, I think crime will not disappear completely; instead the shape itself will change. (Durkheim)