Before we can start talking about what the "biological theories" of criminology are, it is first necessary to understand what the early interpretations of crime were. Early theories tended to focus on supernatural or religious causes, and this is where ideas about witches and witchcraft came into play (e.g., the Salem witch trials), which today seem ridiculous to even believe. However, most crime cases focused on supernatural or religious causes. assumption that these criminals were possessed, rather than committing the crime as a rational choice, and it is here that unconventional treatments came into force, to say the least, such as exorcisms, burnings or trepanations (that is, making a hole in the deviant's skull to release the evil spirits from their body... who knows how that worked?). This explanation soon fell out of favor within the community as some individuals (e.g., Lombroso and H. H. Goddard) began to find more conclusive explanations and moved on to explaining that it was the individual's fault, but not necessarily his or her choice; they used descriptions of phrenology/physiognomy (which was based on Darwin's theory of evolution) and the culture debate, which discusses whether a person is predisposed due to their DNA composition, or is a blank slate and influenced by life experiences and the environment that creates who they will be and adapt as they see fit. Scientists have established that the presence of biological abnormalities will increase the likelihood that an individual will commit criminal acts, but will not force him to commit them (it certainly does not make him a criminal), which is what individuals opposed to biological theories tend to do. argue. Another argument is that biological factors will increase possible criminal behavior when other social/mental factors are also present, which is what other theoretical factions tend to argue.