Biological Roots of Criminal Behavior - Essay Example

? Biological Roots of Criminal Behavior Biological explanations of criminal behavior are referred to as biocriminology. Biocriminology is a criminology theory that assumes that criminality is connected to some part of the human body (Walby & Carrier, 2010). Biocriminology seeks to identify individuals who are “genetically” vulnerable to criminal behavior (Rose, 2000, p. 5). Biocriminology also seeks to explain criminal behavior by reference to a number of biological factors such as brain injuries, prenatal difficulties, neurotransmitters, diets and hormone levels (Anderson, 2006). Historically, sociological explanations of criminal behavior have dominated criminology and crime studies. Biological roots of criminal behavior lost much of its ground during the Second World War, largely discredited by Nazi Germany’s eugenics and the discriminatory treatment of ethnic groups and races that were determined to be predisposed to deviance and thus mercilessly removed from society (Rafter, 2009). However, during the latter part of the 20th century, biological explanations of criminal behavior have been making a comeback (Rafter, 2009). Biological explanations of criminal behavior have been largely influenced by investments in genetic studies are developing impressively and threatening to “break the monopoly” of sociological explanations (Rafter, 2010, p. 199). The emphasis on genetics was spurred by a determination to understand, predict and prevent “harms of all types” from “cancer to terrorism to criminality” (Rafter, 2009, p. 199). The renewed interest in biocriminology has resulted in a number of theoretical assumptions. For instance, Robinson et al (2008) identified the progress made in scientific understandings of the connection between genes, the human brain and corresponding social conduct. According to Robinson et al (2008), the link is explained by reference to “two key vectors of influence” (p. 896). The two key vectors of influences occur as follows: Social information alters gene expression in the brain to influence behavior, and genetic variation influences brain function and social behavior (Robinson et al, 2008, p. 896). McInerney (1999) argued however, that genes alone cannot explain social behavior and as such cannot provide a basis for explaining criminal behavior. According to McInerney (1999) even if it were possible to explain social behavior by virtue of gene functioning and gene expression, environmental influences have a significant influence on factors that give way to criminal behavior. These factors are self-control, motives and any number of factors that function independent of an individual’s genetic make-up (McInerney, 1999). Human behavior is therefore a complex area of study and the factors contributing to criminal behavior are many. There is no single biological factor, nor is there a single environmental factor that causes criminal behavior. The most reasonable conclusion is that there are number of biological factors that interact with a number of environmental and social factors that lead to criminal behavior (Hamer, 2002). Hagan (2011) therefore suggested that biological theories of criminal behavior “will never replace social etiology” (p. 140). What we are left with is determining the “psychological, biological, and sociological factors” and how they “interact to produce crime and delinquency” (Hagan, 2011, p. 140). Mainstream criminologists are slow to embrace the concept of biological factors as appropriate explanations of criminal behavior. Perceptions among mainstream criminologists are that accepting biological explanations of criminal behavior is regressive. Biocriminology requires going back to antiquated ideals of the natural born criminal and accepting that criminal behavior is somehow sick rather than criminal. Thus one is expected to ignore the reality that crime is essentially a conflict between law and behavior and as such can be corrected by rehabilitation and/or punishment (Hagan, 2011). During the Victorian Era, scientific explanations of crime tended to assert that biological traits separated criminals from those who did not commit crimes. For instance the work of Cesare Lombroso during the 19th century emphasized that crime was essentially a biological pursuit (Tibbetts, 2011). In support of his biological theory of criminal behavior, Lombroso examined and measured the skulls of 66 criminals and concluded that these skulls were “primitive” and animal-like (Lombroso, 1876/2006, p. 40). Therefore, from Lombroso’s perspective, biological or physical traits separate criminals from non-criminals and therefore provide a plausible conclusion that biology explains criminal behavior. Burfeind and Bartusch (2010) noted however, that even Lombroso moved away from the biological influences in terms of criminal behavior. According to Burfeind and Bartusch (2010), Lombroso: Moved toward a multi-factor explanation of crime that included not only heredity but also social, cultural, and economic variables (p. 120). William Sheldon’s work during the early part of the 20th century represents the last of “great” believers of “biological determinism” and argued that the main explanations of criminal behavior are “constitutional and inherited” (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2010, p. 120). William Sheldon conducted a number of studies and concluded that there were three main constructs in the human constitution that were closely tied to “three personality temperament types” (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2010, p.120). Sheldon’s three human constitutions or physical traits are endomorphic, mesomorphic and ectomorphic. According to Sheldon’s findings, these three physical traits are tied to three temperaments: viscerotonic, somatotonic and cerebrotonic respectively (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2010). Specifically, the endomorphic human is has a “soft roundness of the body” and a large digestive system which is “highly developed” with other parts of the body “weak and underdeveloped” with “small bones; short limbs, soft and smooth skin” (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2010, p. 120). This individual has a viscerotonic temperament characterized as “relaxed and outgoing” and has a “desire for comfort and gluttony for food and affection” (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2010, p. 120). Sheldon’s second physical trait was the mesomorphic individual who had prominent bone and muscle structures. Such an individual was “hard, firm, upright, strong and sturdy” (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2010, p. 120). The mesomorphic individual had a somatonic temperament and as such was “active, assertive, motivated and achievement-oriented” (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2010, p. 120). The ectomorphic individual was “fragile, thin, and delicate” with a cerebrontonic temperament (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2010, p. 120). The cerebrontic individual was “introverted, inhibited, and restrained” (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2010, p. 120). Sheldon conducted a further comparative study in order to substantiate his claim that his three physical determinants of temperaments or personality traits were predictive of criminal behavior. The study was conducted in 1949 in which Sheldon conducted a 10 year study of 200 delinquent boys and compared them to a number of college male students. Sheldon concluded that the delinquent boys were “more mesomorphic and less ectomorphic than the male college students” (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2010, p. 121). Sheldon also compared the delinquent boy’s physical and personality traits to that of their parents and concluded that there were significant similarities and therefore delinquency was an “inherited” condition (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2010, p. 121). Sheldon’s work is thus characterized as “biological determinism” which essentially emphasizes the significance of biology in determining and predicting the propensity to commit criminal behavior (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2010, p. 121). Followers of biological determinism tended to argue in favor of nature, while sociologists and other criminologists tended to favor the environmental influences on criminal behavior thus spurring the nature vs. nurture debate. The nature vs. nurture debate lost currency during the Second World War. Today’s biocriminologists now accept that environmental factors interact with biological factors to cause criminal behavior. However, sociological perspectives do not typically adopt biological factors (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2010). According to Burfeind and Bartusch (2010), a new theory referred to as biosocial criminology has essentially overtaken biocriminology. Biosocial criminology theories subscribe to the notion that criminal behavior is a consequence of a “combination of social, psychological, and biological causes” (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2010, p. 121). From the perspective of the biosocial criminologist, biological factors alone do not function to cause offending. In fact, biological factors are intricately connected to each other as well as to the environment. The interaction of these factors contributes to criminal behavior (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2010). Arguably, biological theories of criminal behavior can be substantiated by findings in the literature. For instance, Barlow and Kauzlarich (2010) reported that aggressive and violent crimes are typically committed by males, suggesting that the propensity for violent crimes is more likely to be found among the stronger gender. Similarly, criminal conduct is more prevalent among individuals with lower intelligence or academic achievement. Moreover, individuals who commit crimes quite often have parents with criminal backgrounds (Barlow and Kauzlarich, 2010). The inference here is that intelligence and criminal behavior are both inherited. However, each of these theories can be explained away by other factors. Males arguably commit more aggressive and/or violent crimes than females because of social and cultural concepts of masculinity. Likewise, intelligence or academic achievement may be a socio/economic condition. Children may leave school early in order to work, or may simply leave school early as a result of a lack of supervision at home. Additionally, criminals whose parents have a criminal history may not have necessarily inherited the propensity to commit crimes, but may have simply learned by example to commit crimes. In other words, biological explanations of criminal behavior do not discount the possibility that social conditions are more likely to explain criminal behavior. Barlow and Kauzlarich (2010) argued that it is difficult to ignore the argument that environmental conditions “such as neighborhood, upbringing, economic conditions, schools, nutrition, and discrimination” are more likely to “account for most, if not all of the differences” between criminals and non-criminals (p. 44). For example, not all persons with lower intelligence commit crimes. Nor do all males commit aggressive or violent crimes. It is also true that some women commit violent crimes and some persons of higher intelligence also commit crimes. Similarly, individuals whose parents do not have a criminal history also commit crimes. It therefore follows that biological explanations of criminal behavior do not satisfactorily explain criminal behaviour. Indeed, there is evidence in the literature that in certain circumstances, it is possible to attribute criminal behavior purely to biological factors. For instance, Roth (2011) argued that “human neural and endocrime systems” makes the difference between infanticide and raising/nurturing infants (p. 535). The human neural and endocrine system functions to determine whether or not a parent or caregiver decides to “nurture” or “neglect” a child (Roth, 2011, p. 535). Even so, it is difficult, if not impossible to discount the social and economic conditions that operate to influence a parent or caregiver’s decision to either nurture or neglect (murder) a child. Taken at its highest, the most that can be said of biological theories of criminal behavior is that biology may be a relevant factor in assessing the propensity to commit crimes. However, biology alone leaves far too many questions unanswered. For instance, biology may explain why males commit more violent crimes than women do. If one were to accept that the relative strength of males contributes to violence, how does one explain that some women also commit violent crimes and some men do not? In order to answer this question, one has to look elsewhere to identify the cause. Invariably, one must look to social and economic conditions. Social and economic conditions do not always explain criminal behavior either. It therefore follows that biological factors must be looked upon as providing a partial explanation of criminal behavior, in very limited circumstances. As Eigen (2003) cautioned, assigning criminal aggression to biological factors ignores the fact that crime is intentional and not physiological. Just as criminals choose crime as an outlet for aggression, athletes choose sport as an outlet. Thus the question is not one of biology, but of conscious choice (Eigen, 2003). Criminology attempts to identify the causes of criminal behavior for the express purpose of preventing offending. If biocriminology is accepted as a definitive explanation of criminal behavior, all hope for preventing offending is lost. Biocrimnology by definition implies that crime is natural to some persons. Thus rehabilitation and punishment would serve no useful purpose. Moreover, there is always the danger that non-criminals with specific biological traits would suffer stigmatization and in many cases marginalization. It is therefore unlikely, that the biological roots of criminal behavior will not overtake the current tendency to attribute crime to social and economic conditions. Bibliography Anderson, G. S. (2006). Biological Influences on Criminal Behavior. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Barlow, H. D. and Kauzlarich, D. (2010). Explaining Crime: A Primer in Criminological Theory. Plymouth, UK: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Burfeind, J. and Bartusch, D. J. (2010). Juvenile Delinquency: An Integrated Approach. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Eigen, J. P. (2003). Unconscious Crime: Mental Absence and Criminal Responsibility in Victorian London. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Hagan, F. E. (2011). Introduction to Criminology: Theories, Methods, and Criminal Behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Hamer, D. (October 2002). “Rethinking Behavior Genetics.” Science, Vol. 298(5591): 71-72. Lombroso, C. (1876/2006). Criminal Man. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. McInerney, J. D. (November-December 1999). “Genes and Behavior: A complex Relationship.” American Judicature Society, Vol. 83(3): 112. Available online at: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/publicat/judicature/article4.html (Retrieved October 10, 2011). Rafter, N. H. (2008). The Criminal Brain: Understanding Biological Theories of Crime. Albany, NY: NYU Press. Robinson, G. E.; Fernald, R. D. and Clayton, D. F. (November 2008). “Genes and Social Behavior.” Science, Vol. 322 (5903): 896-900. Rose, N. (Feb. 2000). “The Biology of Culpability: Pathological Identity and Crime Control in a Biological Culture.” Theoretical Criminology, Vol. 4(1): 5-34. Roth, R. (2011). “Biology and the Deep History of Homicide.” British Journal of Criminology. Vol. 51(3): 535-555. Tibbetts, S. (2011). Criminological Theory: The Essentials. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Walby, K. and Carrier, N. (August 2010). “The Rise of Biocriminology: Capturing Observable Bodily Economics of ‘Criminal Man’.” Criminology and Criminal Justice, Vol. 10(3): 261-285. Read More