Perkembangan Pemikiran Neo-Lombrosian : Sebuah Tinjauan Teoretis terhadap Determinisme Biologis dalam Kriminologi

Authors

  • Zul Khaidir Kadir Universitas Muslim Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62383/humif.v2i1.843

Keywords:

Neo-Lombrosian, Biological, Determinism, Criminology

Abstract

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, despite the decline of classical biological theory, the idea that biological factors play a role in criminal behavior has again gained attention, especially with the emergence of new fields of study such as neurocriminology and behavioral genetics. This approach, often referred to as Neo-Lombrosianism, updates the old biological theory by integrating new findings from modern science. Unfortunately, while the findings of genetics and neurobiology offer a new landscape for searching for the causes of crime, they risk ignoring the important role of social factors such as poverty, opportunity, social processes, trauma, and structural injustice. This study used a data collection method collected using library research, then analyzed using qualitative methods and presented descriptively. The results of the study indicate that Neo-Lombrosianism has made a significant contribution to the understanding of the relationship between biological factors and criminal behavior, this approach must be balanced with a full awareness of the importance of social, economic, and environmental factors in influencing human behavior. However, there is a great risk that genetic findings can be used to support unfair policies, especially if biological factors are considered to be the main determinants of criminal behavior.

References

Adam Rutherford. (2021). A Cautionary History of Eugenics. Science, 373(6562): 14-19.

Allan V. Horwitz, Tami. M. Videon, Mark F. Schmitz, & Diane Davis. (2003). Rethinking Twins and Environments: Possible Social Sources for Assumed Genetic Influences in Twin Research. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(2): 111-29.

Dmitry V. Karelin, Darya M. Matsepuro, & Fatos Selita. (2018). Criminal Legal Protection of Genetic Data of the Person: To Statement of a Problem. Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, 29(1): 79-90.

Fatos Selita. (2019). Genetic Data Misuse: Risk to Fundamental Human Rights in Developed Economies. Legal Issues Journal, 7(1): 53-95.

Hedvika Pohlova. (2022). The Social Impact of the American Eugenics Movement. American & British Studies Annual, 15(1): 148-163.

Helena Machado, & Rafaela Granja. (2020). Biological Explanation of Criminal Behaviour. Forensic Genetics in the Governance of Crime, 5(3): 33-44.

Joseph J. (2003). Genetics and Antisocial Behavior. Ethical Human Sciences & Services, 5(1): 41-44.

Margus Kanarik, Oliver Grimm, Nina Roth Mota, & Andreas Reif. (2022). ADHD Co-Morbidities: A Review of Implication of Gene X Environment Effects With Dopamine-Related Genes. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 139(3): 104757.

Naomi I. Eisenberg, Baldwin M. Way, Shelley E. Taylor, William T. Welch, & Matthew D. Lieberman. (2007). Understanding Genetic Risk for Aggression: Clues From the Brain’s Response to Social Exclusion. Biol Psychiatry, 61(1): 1100-1108.

Nur Fadhilah Mappaselleng, & Zul Khaidir Kadir. (2023). Ilmu Hukum Pidana 101. Yogyakarta: Arti Bumi Intaran.

Nur Fadhilah Mappaselleng, & Zul Khaidir Kadir. (2017). Kriminologi: Esensi dan Perspektif Arus Utama. Yogyakarta: Trussmedia Grafika.

Patricia Kosseim, Martin Letendre, & Bartha Maria Knoppers. (2004). Protecting Genetic Information: A Comparison of Normative Approaches. GenEdit, 2(1): 1-11.

R. J. R. Blair. (2008). The Amygdala and Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex: Functional Contributions and Dysfunction in Psychopathy. Philosophical Transactions B, 363(1503): 2557-2565.

Rosa del Olmo. (1999). The Development of Criminology in Latin America. Social Justice, 26(2): 19-45.

Sarnoff A. Mednick, William F. Gabrielli. & Barry Hutchings. (1984). Genetic Influences in Criminal Convictions: Evidence from an Adoption Cohort. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 224(4651): 891-894.

Samuel C. Seiden. (2008). The Physician as Gatekeeper to the Use of Genetic Information in the Criminal Justice System. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 30(1): 88-94.

Sophia Zhiyue Zhang. (2023). The Relationship Between Antisocial Personality Disorder and Criminology: Acquired Factors and Genetic Influences. Journal of Education Humanities and Social Sciences, 18(1): 127-132.

Trinh Duy Thuyen, Nguyen Truong Thanh Hai, Armin Kuhr, Tran Huu Tien, Nguyen Quang Dao. (2024). Biological Underpinnings of Criminal Behavior: A Comprehensive Review. Revista de Gestao Social e Ambiental, 18(1): 1-15.

Wail Rehan, N. Kenneth Sandnabba, Ada Johansson, & Lars Westberg. (2015). Effects of MAOA Genotype and Childhood Experiences of Physical and Emotional Abuse on Aggressive Behavior in Adulthood. Nordic Psychology, 67(4): 1-12.

Zul Khaidir Kadir, & Adi Suriadi. (2024). Dimensi Probable Cause Sebagai Standar Pembuktian dalam Melakukan Upaya Paksa Penyidikan: Analisis Komparatif Pada KUHAP dan Yurisprudensi Amerika Serikat. KEMILAW: Kajian Eksekusi Madani Indonesia Journal, 1(2): 136-150.

Downloads

Published

2024-11-19

How to Cite

Zul Khaidir Kadir. (2024). Perkembangan Pemikiran Neo-Lombrosian : Sebuah Tinjauan Teoretis terhadap Determinisme Biologis dalam Kriminologi. Hukum Inovatif : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Sosial Dan Humaniora, 2(1), 01–18. https://doi.org/10.62383/humif.v2i1.843