Biological Predisposition to Criminal Behavior - Research Paper Example

 Biological Predisposition to Criminal Behavior utline 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Biology and Criminality 3.0 Modern Biological Studies 4.0 Gene-Environment Interaction 5.0 Approach of the Criminal Judicial System 6.0 References Biological Predisposition to Criminal Behavior Introduction For a long time, many individuals have tried to answer the question: “Why do some people commit crime and others do not?”Through philosophies associated in psychology and sociology many have tried to answer this question, trying to link the individual behavior with societal values and its contribution to criminal behavior. Recently, criminologists have ventured into other areas such as the sciences or biology in particular. The question therefore started to take on a different form one in which asks, “Could genetic factors affect criminality?” More and more research has been conducted within the area of genetics and even though the research produces mixed results, there are factors and statistics that support a possible genetic connection that may exist within criminal behavior. Biology and Criminality The idea that genes could be responsible for criminal behavior was conceived by Joseph Gall, a German physician and neuroanatomist through his theory of phrenology. The theory proposed that brain functions in distinct organs in the brain. These organs have been categorized into three regions responsible for controlling the moral, intellectual and lower faculties and can be identified by the bumps on somebody’s head. If any bump was larger than the standard size, then that personality characteristic was more pronounced than the rest. Phrenologists believed that such abnormalities could be cured through the development of the moral and intellectual faculties. The discipline later declined but it had already set ground for further exploration. This debate was discussed through further investigation by other criminologists such as Cesare Lombroso through his popular theory of evolutionary atavism in 1867.He believed there were three categories of criminal behavior: Pseudocriminals- those who kill for self-defense or at the spur of the moment; Habitual criminals- criminals because of their poor education as well as upbringing; and Criminaloids- those who are naturally predisposed to commit crime but which could only be revealed under certain circumstances. Richard Dugdale conducted a genealogical study in 1877 of the Jukes family, which revealed that there were high incidences of criminality dating back 200 years. In 1913, Henry Goddard studied the Kallikak family, which showed that feeblemindedness was hereditary and increased chances of criminality. Modern Biological Studies: The Twin Study Johannes Lange, through his 1931 work Crime and Destiny moved the debate from previous studies filled with theoretical and methodological flaws and took a modern approach to the study of genetics and criminality. His Twin study showed that 10 out of 13 identical twins and only 2 out of 17 of fraternal twins were likely to commit crime and therefore a genetic factor has a role to play. This theory was criticized of having used small sizes of samples but it also paved the way for more research. Later, large-scale inquiries were conducted on the XYY genotype. This theory argued that the human genome has 23 pairs of chromosomes among them being a pair of sex chromosomes, which determine gender. The fact that more men than women commit crime was attributed to the extra Y chromosome which made the individual more likely to commit crime than ordinary males (Burt, 2005). Further surveys in prisons and hospitals revealed a disproportionate representation occurrence of XYY’s but other surveys disputed this conclusion. In all the cases however, the sample sizes were so negligible to form any reliable conclusion. Further, the research was done on only those individuals who were thought to have those characteristics and the general population was not included in the study and therefore the results could not be taken as a fair presentation. Another study was conducted by Witkin et al, where males born between January 1995 and December 1947 and women living in Copenhagen were used. 15% of this population was used representing the tallest men. They tested three hypotheses: Aggression hypothesis, which led to increased aggression and criminality and individuals were expected to be violent. (Holmes et al, 2001). The researchers claimed that the extra chromosome affects development of individuals, which leads to intellectual impairment. This in turn results into anti-socialists who are more likely to be convicted than criminals of normal intelligence. The Height hypothesis proposed that the extra height facilitates acts of aggression, which made these individuals appear more dangerous. To determine whether, as earlier contended, the XYY men, i.e. men with an extra Y chromosome, are more disposed to engage in criminal behavior as compared to men with XY chromosomes, a study was conducted amongst a group of convicted criminals. In that study only five XYY’s were found and the convictions related to economic crimes only as opposed to violent offences. Besides, among the five XYY’s convicted of crimes, only two of them had extensive criminal records and one of them was mentally retarded. For the others, two of them had committed a crime for the last time 5 years earlier while for the third one it was 10 years. It was concluded that the XYY’s are therefore not serious criminals as contended. But this method is only useful when some genetic abnormalities have been suspected and researchers are looking for a specific gene, which may be responsible for a certain behavior. Most of these studies are conducted by analyzing family relations in criminal behavior, for example the twin studies, comparing the fraternal twins to the identical twins and identifying the correlation as well as the adoption studies which seek to distinguish the relationship between the adoptee and his biological and adoptive parents, (Tehrani &Mednick, 2000). Gene-Environment Interaction The latest twin studies have shown that the rate at which the identical twins were found to share the same criminal or noncriminal tendencies was about 60% while that of fraternal twins was about 25%. This could mean the genetic makeup could have played a role but such results could also be explained by the fact that the identical twins were brought up closely together. When the twins were brought up within a population with alcoholism and less education, a social deviance tendency was reported. The criminal disposition for both pairs was almost equal when the twins grew in close relations. It was decided that criminality did not result from genes but from interaction of the twins. Criminologists have also named other parameters capable of influencing development of criminal behavior. These are common environmental factors such as social class which makes twins become similar and specific environmental factors such as genetic make-up that causes the twins to be dissimilar as a result of segregation of genes in a family. Another study is where the twins were separated early in life and brought up within very different environmental and social settings. It showed that 70% of IQ variance resulted from genetic factors but that being brought up under same environment did not have any effect on adult IQ. Another study is the adoption study aimed at testing the role of environmental factors. This study showed that when biological parents had criminal tendencies and the adoptees exhibited more criminality as compared to when it was only the adopting parents who were parents. The criminality of biological parents affected the criminality of the adoptee but the criminality of the adoptive parent did not affect them as much. Generally however, criminality was affected by both genes and environment; for adoptive parents it was their socioeconomic status, (Rhee & Waldman, 2002). Thus the discussion whether genes affect the criminality of a person has produced mixed results. The biological make-up of an individual can cause criminal behavior but this may also be subject to other factors such as psychological, sociological or environmental. Approach of the Criminal Judicial System For a long time our criminal judicial system has been made home to people who have psychological problems. Even though most people view this as the ultimate solution to wipe out criminal behaviors, it appears it may not be the best solution. Once the judicial system has already labeled an individual to be a criminal, it only serves to stigmatize those who committed the crime not out of their own volition but because of their psychological problems. Some of these behaviors have been proven to be inherited (Miles and Carey, 1997) and the individuals who possess them may find themselves committing crimes beyond their own will. So the criminal judicial system should move from the current normative, psychological imperative one, which determines the culpability of the offender largely based on his mental state and adopt one that is genetically and physiologically oriented. In this kind of system, genetics play a big role in determining the propensity of certain behavior and criminal responsibility for the individuals’ actions, (Friedland, 1997). People with genetic abnormalities should be treated differently from those who don’t show any such abnormalities. Also, genetic information may be used to determine the probability of an individual to commit future crimes. Judicial decisions concerning sentencing will be made according to genetic factors and gene therapy would be administered in the rehabilitation of an offender. References Miles, D. R., &Carey, G. (1997). “Genetic and Environmental Architecture of Human Aggression.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 207-217. Burt, Lisa C. (2005). “Men Are Not the Only Criminals: Insights into Criminal Behavior in Women.” Rochester Institute of Technology, 12, 143-150. Holmes, S. E., Slaughter, J. R., & Kashani, J. (2001). “Risk Factors in Childhood that Lead to the Development of Conduct Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder.” Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 31, 183-193 Friedland, I. (1997). “The Criminal Law Implications of the Human Genome Project: Reimagining a Genetically Oriented Criminal Justice System,” Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 86, pp. 303-366 Tehrani, J., &Mednick, S. (2000). “Genetic Factors and Criminal Behavior.” Federal Probation, 64, 24-28. Rhee, S. H., & Waldman, I. D. (2002). “Genetic and Environmental Influences on Antisocial Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of Twin and Adoption Studies.”Psychological Bulletin, 128, 490-529. Read More