Criminologists attempt to explain the compulsion to commit crime through various theories. Two major theoretical influences are biological and sociological. The biological perspective suggests that the disposition to break the law is interwoven in one's character prior to birth. In opposition, the sociological perspective believes crimes are committed as a result of the influence of social experiences. Consequently, crime could be eradicated by surroundings which promote legal behavior; however through the biological perspective the hopes of eliminating crime are almost inconceivable for the reason that select members of society are pre-conditioned to a life of misconduct, and therefore uncontrollable.
             Biologically the blame for deviant actions is placed upon neurological problems, genetic influences, and biochemical factors. Sociologically it is explained by poverty, lack of education, environmental placement, and life experiences. The theories differ by viewing crime causes either internal or external.
             The perspectives may seem to differ immensely; however, in some areas they are closely related. For example, both perspectives allow for the explanation of a human being born with a higher probability for criminal tendencies. Biocriminologists focus on heredity as the basis for producing crime-prone people. Tendencies for crime would be a predisposing made coding found in a person's DNA. Sociological criminologists describe the likelihood of becoming a criminal by linking it to the disadvantages of environment. An environment in which the culture of morality is suppressed by population density, unemployment, and racial stereotyping is thought to cause apathy, cynicism, helplessness, an distrust. These emotions are believed to be responsible for transforming human emotion into criminal activity. The lack of a strong cultural influence may be passed on from one generation to another, creating a continual poten...