Use of Bio-Social and Neurobiology Perspectives to Explain Criminology - Research Paper Example

Use Biosocial and Neurobiology Perspectives to Explain Criminology Introduction Advancements in criminology are founded on a virtually unending stream of criminology theories. The development of each theory is aimed at explaining numerous factors that ultimately result in the growth of antisocial, delinquent, and criminal behaviors. Just as there are multiple theories of crime, there are extraordinarily varying factors identified as outstanding to the origination of criminal behavior. However, social factors have been identified to cut across practically all theories of crime and these become the ultimate object in matters regarding explanation of crime and diverse forms of antisocial conduct. In order to understand crime and antisocial conduct, numerous theoretically enlightening variables need to be examined, either cumulatively or in isolation, and in most cases, most variations in antisocial behavior remain unexplained. Consequently, the insufficient explanatory powers of existing theories of crime lead to the development of new theories to deal with broader pool of criminology variables. This paper explores two emerging perspectives of criminology, which are biosocial and neurobiology, and the central issues associated to each. Emergent Perspectives of Criminology Traditionally, criminology has supposed that criminal behaviors have resulted from environmentalism or disparities in environmental factors, particularly social environment causes (Walsh and Ellis 4-5). However, this assumption has drawbacks for not evaluating the biological factors that result in crime, and that are explained in biosocial and neurobiology criminology perspectives. The Biosocial Perspective The biosocial perspective differs from traditional criminology in its supposition that the interaction of both biological and environmental factors affect criminal conduct. Unlike the supporters of social environmental explanation of criminal behavior, biosocial theorists argue that criminality is a lawful concept whose core is the actions that societies recognize as socially unacceptable. According to Walsh and Ellis (10), biosocial criminology acknowledges that biology is fundamental in efforts to comprehend criminal behavior. However, this does not mean that social factors are excluded from biosocial criminology, but that the interaction between biological and social factors influences the disparities in trends towards criminal defilements. Though biosocial criminology may appear simplified, Walsh (146) acknowledges that criminologists have to understand complex and numerous biological principles to get it right particularly its advocacy for treatment and not punishment, and favor of indeterminate sentences over fixed sentences. Neurobiology Perspective of Criminology Raine (n.p) define neurobiology approach to criminology as the study of the criminals mind. Neurocriminology field uses neuroscience to comprehend and avoid crime and criminologist use it to appreciate the motivating forces of ‘bad’ conduct. From research, the role of neuroscience in accepting aggressive and antisocial conduct is linked to the criminal’s genetic factors. Consequently, the role of genetic and environmental factors is believed to influence a broad range of antisocial conduct. In order to understand the role of genetics in antisocial behaviors, criminologists have to focus on the role of genes in crime (Bolen and Walsh 17). At this point, the criminologists seek to answer “Which genes incline persons to unlawful behavior?” While neurobiology seeks to explain the consequences of the effects of neurobiology on brain behavior, most people feel uncomfortable with the outcomes of neurocriminology (Raine n.p). For the conservatives, the acknowledgment of biological threat factors to ferocity will lead to a society where crime is regarded from a soft approach with no one being held answerable. For the liberals, using biology will stigmatize apparently acquitted persons. However, advancements in neurocriminology each year have attracted new researchers, supporters, and practitioners who comprehend its capacity to change criminal prevention and criminal practice. Biosocial Perspective in Criminology According to Walsh (130), biosocial criminology acknowledges the possible insights from disciplines that study hormones, genes, brain, and evolution psychology while dismissing the inexperienced nature versus nurture arguments, and in favor of nature via nurture. The nature via nurture approach to criminology appreciates that any human behavior, characteristic, or trait is as a result of interactions between environmental and biological factors. Consequently, Walsh and Beaver (17) define modern biologically founded criminology as biosocial and not biological for their explicit imagination of ecological and organic interactions. Given the advent of machines that facilitate the study of human brain and the human genome sequencing, biological evaluation of criminality necessitates embracing biological theories including evolutionary ideas, the brain and the genes. Behavior Genetics In behavior genetics, Walsh (130) highlights that a person constitutes of traits developed from the combine functioning of the environment and genes such as height, weight, blood pressure and others. However, genes are not directly identified as causes of feeling or behavior. Instead, genes promote propensities to react to environments in some ways unlike other ways. The implication is that no gene causes a person to engage in criminal behavior, but there are genes that increase a person’s potential to engage in criminal conduct when existing in a given environment. Some traits that elevate the probability of criminal conduct include low empathy, impulsiveness, and low IQ. In order quantify the extent to which genes effect a person’s trait, heritability measure is used and is symbolized by h2, ranging from 0 to 1. As h2 approaches 1.0, the variance in a given population’s trait is mostly from genetic factors. Since heritability involves both the environment and genes, the environmental measure of heritability is given by 1-h2, where all personal, behavioral, and cognitive traits are heritable. Human’s active transactions with the environment are described by gene-environment interaction and gene-environment correlation. Although behavior genetics has no identified genetic theories of criminal conduct, it is a crucial means of understanding traditional criminology theories such as using genetic factors to sort out family structures, which are a variable associated with antisocial habits. Therefore, families with divorced or never married women have children at higher risk to antisocial behavior unlike families with both biological parents. For the at-risk families, sibling’s choices are mostly governed by low self-control linked to low serotonin levels, controlled by the environment and genes. According to Walsh (144), while genes govern the levels of serotonin in an individual, it is the environment that determines their levels by elevating or reducing them. Evolutionary Psychology The operation of criminologists in evolutionary psychology falls within exploring how some society behaviors could have been adaptive within ancestral environments. Through evolutionary psychology, Walsh and Ellis (15) reveal that criminologists tend to seek for aspects that make humans similar and answers ultimate-level explanations, which contrasts with genetics that seek for what makes people different and seeks to answer ultimate –level question of how. Consequently, criminologists view crime as an ordinary human conduct that despite being morally regrettable has a probability of occurring in everyone. Walsh (134-135) acknowledges that, since crime is morally regrettable, it also means illegitimate acquisition of resources or cheating, thus defaulting the rules of cooperation. The development of criminal behaviors, therefore, mean that since natural selection forges most human adaptations for survival and reproduction pressures, it is possible that some human adaptations are designated to fulfill morally wrong objectives. Neuroscience Perspective This approach emphasizes that prior to expression in behavior stimuli are transmitted through the brain. This implies that the governing of human behavior is the role of the brain activated by hereditary wiring and followed by the wiring of the brain reacting to environmental input. The process of the brain’s soft wiring is dependent the occurrence and strength of previous experiences. This means that adverse childhood experiences could result to the organization of the brain such that the world is experienced negatively, thus extremely vulnerable to antisocial behavior. In biosocial criminology dopamine and serotonin is core to the neurobiological Reinforcement Dominance Theory (RDT) that emphasizes on behavioral control and emotional expression (Bolen and Walsh 18). Criminologists appreciate that the nature of human brain makes humans respond to the environment they are living in and where stimuli arise. As genes interact with the environment, brain functioning differs in individuals and experience-dependent processes are key to appreciating personality. The common forms of encountered environments are social, physical, and cultural. Explain violence using the brain involves understanding that the stimulation of neural network is high at earliest years or childhood. During this time, the brain is more flexible biases the process of selection. For this reason, Walsh and Ellis (22) emphasize that childhood attachment and bonding are crucial while child abuse and neglect are hazardous as they elevate stress hormone levels linked to social growth delays. Continued antisocial behavior in childhood and adolescent predicts a broad array of troublesome consequences in adult and criminologists can use this sociological consideration of crime during the course of life on persistently delinquent adolescents (Collins 10). Conclusion Criminology efforts prevent and minimize crime has long focused on variation in social environmental factors with little attention to biological factors that result to crime. Despite early adoptions, biological factors remained unexploited until recently when biologically-based criminology and crime management policies re-emerged. As evident in the biosocial and neurobiological perspectives of criminology, the social context has novel attention and sophistication where childhood and adolescent biological risk factors result in special influence in criminology. These perspectives introduce advancements in dealing with crime, antisocial behavior, and criminals and call for abandonment of completely sociological criminology. Works Cited Bolen, Jonathan and Anthony Walsh. The Neurobiology of Criminal Behavior: Gene-Brain-Culture Interaction. United States: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2013. Print. Collins, Raymond, E. “Onset and Desistance in Criminal Careers: Neurobiology and the Age-Crime Relationship.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation (2004): 1-19. Print. Raine, Adrian. “The Criminal Mind.” The Wall Street Journal 26 April 2013: web. Walsh, Anthony and Kelvin, M Beaver. Contemporary Biosocial Criminology: New Directions in Theory and Research. London: Routledge, 2008. Print. Walsh, Anthony and Lee Ellis. Biosocial Criminology: Challenging Environmentalisms Supremacy . United States: Nova Science Publishers Inc, 2003. Print. Walsh, Anthony. Criminology: The Essentials. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2012. Print. Read More