The Atavistic Theory of Crime: A Psychological Perspective

The criminal mind. A phrase that conjures images of shadowy figures lurking in the darkness, driven by impulses that defy societal norms. Throughout history, countless theories have sought to explain the origins of criminal behavior, ranging from sociological and economic factors to psychological and biological influences. Among these, the atavistic theory stands as a particularly intriguing and controversial proposition. This theory, born in the late 19th century, posits that criminals are evolutionary throwbacks, biological “degenerates” who exhibit primitive, animalistic traits.

Imagine a world where criminals are not simply misguided individuals but rather individuals biologically predisposed to violence and deviance. This is the chilling premise of the atavistic theory of crime, a concept that once held significant sway in criminological thought. Proponents of this theory, most notably Cesare Lombroso, argued that criminals possess distinct physical characteristics that mark them as “born criminals,” such as pronounced jaws, sloping foreheads, and asymmetrical facial features. These physical anomalies, they claimed, were remnants of a more primitive evolutionary past, indicating a regression to a more savage state of being.  

While the atavistic theory may seem like a relic of a bygone era, its echoes can still be heard in contemporary discussions about crime and criminality. This article will delve into the historical context of the atavistic theory, examining its key tenets and the scientific evidence, or lack thereof, that supports it. We will explore the social and political implications of this controversial theory and its enduring influence on our understanding of crime and the criminal mind. By critically examining the atavistic theory, we can gain valuable insights into the evolving discourse on crime and the enduring search for explanations for human deviance.

Historical Context and Development

The atavistic theory emerged during a time when the scientific community was deeply influenced by Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Cesare Lombroso, often considered the father of modern criminology, drew upon this evolutionary framework to propose that criminals represent a regression to a more primitive state of human development. In his seminal work “L’uomo delinquente” (The Criminal Man), published in 1876, Lombroso argued that certain physical characteristics could identify individuals more likely to commit crimes.

Lombroso wrote in regards to his theory that:

“An essential point the study not of crime in the abstract, but of the criminal himself, in order adequately to deal with the evil effects of his wrongdoing, and that which classifies the congenital criminal as an anomaly, partly pathological and partly atavistic, a revival of the primitive savage — did not suggest themselves to me instantaneously under the spell of a single deep impression, but were the offspring of a series of impressions” (Lombroso-Ferrero, 1911).

The Moment of Insight

In 1870, Cesare Lombroso was a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pavia. As part of his position, he conducted research on cadavers and living persons, seeking to determine the differences between criminals and the insane. His initial work, failed to identify any consistent identifiable differences until one morning he was “deputed to do a post-mortem on a famous bandit, when he suddenly noticed a long series of ‘atavistic anomalies, above all an enormous middle occipital fossa and a hypertrophy of the vermis analogous to those that are found in inferior vertebrates’” (Rennie, 1978).

In regards to this moment of enlightenment, Lombroso explains:

“This was not merely an idea, but a revelation. At the sight of that skull, I seemed to see all of a sudden, lighted up as a vast plain under a flaming sky, the problem of the nature of the criminal—an atavistic being who reproduces in his person the ferocious instincts of primitive humanity and the inferior animals” (Lombroso-Ferrero, 1911).

Lombroso’s theory was grounded in the belief that some criminals exhibit physical anomalies, or “stigmata,” that differentiate them from non-criminals. These stigmata included features such as an asymmetrical face, larger jaws, abnormal teeth, and a sloping forehead. Lombroso believed that these traits were indicative of an evolutionary throwback, or atavism, to a more primitive and brutish ancestor.

Key Concepts of the Atavistic Theory

Biological Determinism

At the core of the atavistic theory is the notion of biological determinism. Lombroso posited that criminal behavior is largely predetermined by an individual’s genetic makeup and physical constitution. This perspective challenged the prevailing views of the time, which emphasized free will and moral responsibility in explaining criminal behavior.

Physical Stigmata

Lombroso’s identification of physical stigmata as markers of criminality was a central aspect of his theory. He meticulously cataloged various anatomical features that he believed were more prevalent among criminals than the general population. These included cranial abnormalities, such as a flattened nose or excessively long arms, which he argued were vestiges of humanity’s distant past.

Gina Lombroso-Ferrero, Cesare Lombroso’s daughter, wrote after citing the physical difference that these anomalies “in the limbs, trunk, skull and, above all, in the face, when numerous and marked, constitute what is known to criminal anthropologists as the criminal type, in exactly the same way as the sum of the characters peculiar to cretins form what is called the cretinous type.” However, she adds: “In neither case have the anomalies an intrinsic importance, since they are neither the cause of the anti-social tendencies of the criminal nor of the mental deficiencies of the cretin. They are the outward and visible signs of a mysterious and complicated process of degeneration, which in the case of the criminal evokes evil impulses that are largely of atavistic origin” (Lombroso-Ferrero, 1911).

In gathering data to support his hypothesis, Lombroso “personally measured the skulls of three hundred eighty-three dead prisoners, and with the assistance of students, five thousand nine hundred five living ones” (Rennie, 1978, p. 69).

Types of Criminals

While Lombroso is remembered for his theory that identified physical traits associated with the born criminal, history fails to remind that Lombroso saw the atavistic criminal as only a particular type of criminal, and not representative of all criminals. Lombroso, “never asserted that born or atavistic criminals constituted the mass or even the majority of lawbreakers; he admitted the existence of criminals who were developed by opportunity. He claimed to find the “criminal type” in 40 percent of criminals” (JAMA, 1911). Lombroso further reduced this percentage before his death.

Lombroso’s theory also classified criminals into different categories based on their physical and psychological characteristics. He distinguished between “born criminals,” who were supposedly innately predisposed to crime, and “criminaloids,” who became criminals due to environmental factors or social influences. Additionally, he identified “insane criminals,” whose criminal behavior was linked to mental illness or other psychological disorders.

In regards to insane criminals.’ Lombroso remarked that many will “object that if we make allowance for the possibility of mental disease, we might end up punishing no one.” However similar objections were “once raised against those who opposed burning witches” (Lombroso, 1876, p. 148).

Lombroso’s Progressive Approach to Crime

Mary Gibson and Nicole Hahn Rafter wrote in the introduction to the 2006 translation of Criminal Man:

“Lombroso’s criminological theory also embraces sociological causes of crime. As a young liberal supporter of Italian unification and later a member of the Italian Socialist Party, Lombroso sympathized with the working classes and advocated a series of sometimes radical reforms to lessen poverty and prevent lawbreaking.t He proposed humanitarian alternatives to incarceration for so-called occasional criminals, or those individuals driven to crime by bad environment, and he became an ardent champion of special medical institutions for the criminally insane” (Lombroso, 1876/2006).

Lombroso also advocated separating the dangerous repeating criminal from the general prison population. He wrote:

“Prisons for incorrigibles would offer a place to hold in perpetuity those recidivistic offenders and members of criminal organizations who most threaten society. Such institutions for incorrigibles would also give us a way to purge regular prisons of the gangs that, by glorifying vice, stymie efforts at correction” (Lombroso, 1876).

Deterioration Theory

The atavistic theory emerged during a time when science was moving into a more prominent role in confronting social issues. In 1856, nineteen years before Lombroso published his research on his theory of the physical features of the born criminal a degeneration or as Lombroso puts it “a revival of the primitive savage, Bénédict Augustin Morel​ published Treatise on Degeneration.

According to Morel, mental deficiency were an end stage of a process of mental degeneration. He emphasized the impact these changes on society, drawing attention to the growing number of crimes against property and persons, and suicides. Morel perceived degeneration as an undeniable and serious danger (Huertas & Winston, 1992). Degenerative theory regarded mental illness as a product of “evolution in the wrong direction” (Hoff, 2008).

While the focus of degenerative theory and Lombroso’s Atavistic theory is different (mental illness vs. criminal behavior), the concept shares many similarities. Both theories point to a biological degenerative element, leading toa return to the “primitive savage.”

Criticisms and Controversies

Despite its initial influence, the atavistic theory of crime has been subject to significant criticism and controversy. One of the primary criticisms is its reliance on biological determinism, which downplays the role of environmental, social, and psychological factors in shaping criminal behavior. Moreover, modern genetics and neuroscience have shown that criminal behavior cannot be attributed solely to physical traits or genetic predispositions.

Ethical Implications

The atavistic theory also raises ethical concerns, particularly regarding the potential for stigmatization and discrimination. By suggesting that certain individuals are biologically destined to become criminals, the theory risks reinforcing stereotypes and justifying prejudicial treatment based on physical appearance. This ethical dilemma highlights the need for a more holistic and nuanced understanding of criminal behavior.

Identifying fundamental biological differences in criminals is a recurring theme. Human nature is bent on finding an ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ explanation. Biological differences soothes our souls, providing a protective shield against the fragile differences between a criminal and a productive citizen. One scientist proposed that “such theories are sometimes popular because they fill a psychological need— i.e. the need to feel that criminals are somehow wholly different from ourselves” (Green, 1983).

Scientific Validity

Contemporary scholars question Lombroso’s methodology and scientific rigor. Moreover, they point to his flawed reliance on anecdotal evidence and small sample sizes that undermine the validity of his conclusions. Moreover, the identification of physical stigmata as indicators of criminality lacks empirical support. Accordingly. modern criminology has largely discredited Lombroso’s findings.

Shortly after the death of Lombroso the British Prison Commission authorized research on the atavistic characteristics of three thousand of the worst convicts in England, this research included measurements, family history and mental and physical characteristics. Their research failed to confirm the existence of a criminal type. Moreover, they wrote, “both with regard to measurements and the presence of physical anomalies in criminals, these statistics present a startling conformity with similar statistics of the law-abiding classes” (JAMA, 1911).

Legacy and Contemporary Relevance

While science no longer considers the atavistic theory of crime as a credible explanation for criminal behavior, we should not overlook its historical significance. Lombroso’s work laid the foundation for the development of criminology as a scientific discipline. His theory spurred further research into the biological and psychological underpinnings of crime.

Current Equivalents to the Opposition Experienced by Lombroso

An interesting equivalent to the nineteenth century response to Lombroso’s atavistic theory is a modern distaste of more complex models that examine the cause criminal behavior. Lombroso wrote in regards to public opposition that:

“The first stone had been scarcely laid when from all quarters of Europe arose those calumnies and misrepresentations which always follow in the train of audacious innovations. We were accused of wishing to proclaim the impunity of crime, of demanding the release of all criminals, of refusing to take into account climatic and racial influences and of asserting that the criminal is a slave eternally chained to his instincts” (Lombroso-Ferrero, 1911).

In modern times, we still hear these misrepresentations and fears in response to theories identifying the causes of crime. Published research immediate spikes the fear of large segments of society that prefer an oversimplified explanation of ‘bad’ behavior. They prefer to attribute ‘bad’ behavior to ‘bad’ people, dismissing any need for further examination. Perhaps, this oversimplified, unscientific explanation for crime relieves them of the burdensome experience of feeling empathy or guilt.

In an odd way, many people prefer an unscientific atavistic theory to categorize criminals. They employ quick categorization mechanisms (bias), instead of using more complex cognitions. Politicians capitalize on these simple categorizations, inciting fear, and then employing inhuman tactics as a ‘logical’ measure to suppress crime.

Evolution of Criminological Theories

The atavistic theory paved the way for subsequent criminological theories that integrated biological, psychological, and sociological perspectives. We refer to this as a biopsychosocial model. For instance, the biosocial theory of crime acknowledges the interplay between genetic predispositions and environmental influences in shaping criminal behavior. Similarly, contemporary research in neuroscience explores how brain structure and function may contribute to antisocial behavior.

Importance of a Multidisciplinary Approach

One of the enduring lessons from the atavistic theory is the importance of adopting a multidisciplinary approach to understanding criminal behavior. While Lombroso’s emphasis on biological factors was flawed, it underscored the need to consider a wide range of influences. These include genetics, psychology, social environment, and cultural context. By integrating these perspectives, modern criminology can develop more comprehensive and effective strategies for preventing and addressing criminal behavior.

Associated Concepts

• Sociopathy: This term describes a personality disorder characterized by consistent antisocial behavior, lack of empathy, disregard for the rights of others, and manipulative tendencies.
• Amoral Model: This is a theoretical framework that outlines the development and manifestation of dark creativity. It traces a creative action from its Antecedents to Mechanisms and Operants to its Realization, and to the subsequent After-effects and Legacy to act.
• Akers’ Social Learning Theory (Criminology): This is a criminological theory that explains how criminal behavior is learned through social interaction, refining Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory.
• Subculture of Violence Theory: This theory proposes that certain groups or subcultures within society develop norms and values that condone or even encourage the use of violence.
• Degeneration Theory: This theory posits that biological devolution was a primary cause of mental illness. The theory suggests that the phenomenon occurs as an organism degenerates from a more complex state to a simpler, less differentiated state.
• Malevolent Creativity: This refers to creativity used in the pursuit of malicious, antisocial, and destructive goals.
• Moral Disengagement Theory: This theory, developed by Albert Bandura, explores cognitive mechanisms enabling individuals to rationalize and justify unethical actions. It delves into mental processes used to disengage from moral standards.
• Empathy Deficit Disorder: This disorder hinders relationships and perpetuates isolation. Scientist cite both environmental and biological factors for its formation. Lack of empathy may compound evil behaviors when combined with creativity.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

Lombroso’s findings through his meticulous measurements were likely influenced by his early ‘revelation’ of insight. However, his misinterpretation of the atavistic criminal, should not discredit his underlying concepts and progressive approach to crime.

Today we know that some personality types have greater vulnerability for committing crime, possessing greater than average impulses or lacking in self-regulation ability. We also know that early life environments play a significant role in the developing of criminal tendencies. Social environments throughout an individual’s life may influence behaviors in a number of ways, including motivating criminal behaviors.

Many of Lombroso’s early concepts for addressing crime remain relevant even in the light of our more complex understanding of crime.

The atavistic theory of crime, with its focus on biological determinism and physical stigmata, represents a pivotal moment in the history of criminology. Despite its numerous flaws and controversies, Lombroso’s work sparked important debates. Lombroso’s theory laid the groundwork for future research into the complex nature of criminal behavior. Today, the legacy of the atavistic theory serves as a reminder of the need for a balanced and evidence-based approach to crime. Only by understanding the complex causes motivating behavior can we address the root causes of crime.

Last Update: October 1, 2025