Biosocial Theories of Crime

Kevin M. Beaver, KevinM. Beaver, Anthony Walsh

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9780754629191
• eBook ISBN: 9781351573603
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: History

Biosocial criminology is an emerging perspective that highlights the interdependence between genetic and environmental factors in the etiology of antisocial behaviors. However, given that biosocial criminology has only recently gained traction among criminologists, there has not been any attempt to compile some of the "classic" articles on this topic. Beaver and Walsh's edited volume addresses this gap in the literature by identifying some of the most influential biosocial criminological articles and including them in a single resource. The articles covered in this volume examine the connection between genetics and crime, evolutionary psychology and crime, and neuroscience and crime. This volume will be a valuable resource for anyone interested in understanding the causes of crime from a biosocial criminological perspective.

Part I
Statements on the Biosocial Perspective

1
Biological Perspectives in Criminology^*

Diana H. Fishbein

University of Baltimore

For several decades, mainstream criminology has been dominated by sociological and political perspectives. Although findings from these fields must not be discarded or underplayed, considered alone, they do not offer a complete assessment of the contributions to criminal behavior. Data currently being generated from numerous behavioral sciences, such as behavioral genetics, physiological psychology, psychopharmacology, and endocrinology, indicate that biological factors play an equally significant role in the development of antisocial behavior and should be considered accordingly. Incorporation of the theoretical parameters and findings of these behavioral sciences into a criminological framework would yield valuable information regarding processes underlying antisocial behavior. Such a multidisciplinary approach is likely to enhance capabilities to predict, prevent, and manage antisocial behavior Theoretical parameters, methodological issues, selected research findings, potential applications, and precautions are discussed.

Wilson and Hermstein (1985) recently published a massive evaluation of the implications of biological data for topics of interest to criminologists. Their message is that insufficient consideration has been given to biological and social interactions in criminological studies. Consistent observations that a small percentage of offenders are responsible for a preponderance of serious crime (Hamparin et al., 1978; Moffitt et al, 1989; Wolfgang, 1972) suggest that particular forces produce antisocial behavior in particular individuals. Further, much research shows that violent criminals have an early history of crime and aggression (Loeber and Dishion, 1983; Moffitt et al., 1989). The possibility that biological conditions may play a role in the development of antisocial and criminal behavior is accentuated by these reports and has spurred a search for biological markers in “vulnerable” subgroups (Mednick et al, 1987).

In the past, theories of the biological aspects of criminal behavior were marked by a general lack of knowledge regarding the human brain and by serious methodological shortcomings (see, e.g., Glueck and Glueck, 1956; Goddard, 1921; Hooten, 1939; Jacobs et al., 1965; Lombroso, 1918; Sheldon, 1949). Indeed, “biological criminology” was eventually discredited because its findings were largely unscientific, simplistic,. and unicausal. Biological factors were globally rejected due to the inability of theorists to posit a rational explanation for the development of criminal behavior.

More recently, biological aspects of criminal behavior have been investigated by numerous behavioral scientists employing a multidisciplinary approach that promises to enhance substantially the rigor of the findings. Scientists in such fields as genetics, biochemistry, endocrinology, neuroscience, immunology, and psychophysiology have been intensively studying aspects of human behavior that are relevant to the criminologist and the criminal justice practitioner. Due to the highly technical and field-specific language of much of this research, findings generated from these works are not usually included in the literature reviews of criminologists. The relative lack of interdisciplinary communication has resulted in a lack of awareness of data pertinent to the study of crime and criminal behavior. This paper is a small step toward filling that gap.

The primary purpose of this paper is to present an overview of biological perspectives on the study of crime. Once acquainted with the parameters and findings of biological research, criminologists may begin to incorporate reliable biological aspects of criminal behavior into their theoretical and applied frameworks. Specific findings in biology are presented for criminologists to consider. Although the paper provides only an initial, condensed introduction to the vast amount of work accomplished in the behavioral sciences, it may help develop a sound, scientific, and pragmatic framework for future criminological research with a multidisciplinary orientation.

Theoretical and Methodological Parameters

Several critical issues must be addressed in order to (1) establish the relevancy of biology to the study of crime, (2) develop the groundwork for including biological data in criminological theories, (3) design research projects using compatible measurement instruments, data sets, and statistical techniques, and (4) determine the boundaries of practical applications of biological findings. These four requirements for multidisciplinary investigation in criminology are contingent on the assumptions and paradigm of the researcher, which have yet to be set forth adequately in the criminological literature. Pertinent issues include nature versus nurture, free will versus determinism, identifying relevant behavioral disorders and subject populations, assumptions and conceptual framework, and finally, methodological considerations. The discussion of these issues that follows may be opposed or modified by other criminologists with a biological orientation. This discussion is not intended as the last word, but rather as one of the first.

Nature or Nurture?

The first issue that must be addressed before the parameters of biological research in criminology can be established is the age-old question of whether human behavior is a product of nature or nurture. Theoreticians of the past generally espoused one or the other viewpoint. Those who claim that nature contributes predominantly to an individual’s behavior have been affiliated in the past with conservative political ideologies and were known as “hereditarians.” In this circle, behavior was primarily attributed to inherited predispositions, and genetic influences were considered responsible for most of the variance in complex human behaviors.

The argument that nurture is the impetus for behavior was advocated by the “environmentalists,” who were generally associated with a liberal ideology. Watson’s (1925) interpretation of John Locke’s tabula rasa (blank slate), for example, maintained that humans are bom without predispositions to behave in any predetermined or predictable manner. Environmental inputs were considered primarily responsible for the final behavioral product, and manipulations of external inputs were thought to modify behavior.

These opposing views are reflected in past political and social movements, such as radical behaviorism and social Darwinism, many of which have had devastating social and scientific consequences. The concept of predatory ethics, couched in the possibility of the state’s punitive sanctioning of “unacceptable” or merely predicted future behaviors, eventually contributed to a complete rejection of biological perspectives by many scientists and their sponsors. The threat of “control and oppression by science” was realized and feared.

Few behavioral scientists today adhere to either of these extreme views. A consensus has been emerging over the past 10 to 15 years that the “truth” lies somewhere in between—a “nature plus nurture” perspective (see Plomin, 1989). Although the nurture perspective has dominated fields such as criminology for the past few decades, substantial biological findings can no longer be ignored. Several studies on alcoholism, temperament, criminality, depression, and mental illness have established a solid role for genetic and biological influences (selected recent examples are detailed below). Even though behavioral scientists have yet to determine precisely the separate, relative contributions of biology and social learning to behavior, their findings are particularly relevant to the criminologist, who should play an instrumental role in their evaluation given the potential impact on policy.

Evidence for an interaction between nature and nurture comes from both animal and clinical studies, which demonstrates the strength and importance of the dynamic link between biological and acquired traits. One example of this interaction is that aggressive behavior in monkeys can be elicited by stimulating certain areas of the brain with implanted intracerebral electrodes (see Carlson, 1977:442-449). The final behavioral result depends on the hierarchical structure of the monkey colony. Dominant monkeys will exhibit aggressive behavior with electrical stimulation of the brain in the presence of a submissive monkey. The same monkeys will suppress aggressive behavior, on the other hand, if another dominant monkey is present. An example of this interaction in humans is illustrated by recent reports that gender differences in cognitive ability are decreasing (see Geary, 1989). Cognition, however, is fundamentally influenced by neural processes that operate during an individual’s development (ontogeny). In an effort to explain changing trends in a seemingly immutable biological process, researchers are discovering that cultural and experiential conditions directly influence the developing pattern of cognitive abilities. For example, activity patterns (e.g., frequency of rough and tumble play) may alter cognitive ability (e.g., spatial skills) by modifying processes of brain development.

These illustrations remind us that as evidence for a substantial genetic influence grows we must be cautious not to replace environmental explanations with biological deterministic views. Instead, a more accommodating, balanced approach will carry more empirical weight.

Free Will or Determinism?

The acceptance of biological explanations for human behavior has been thought by many to preclude the possibility of free will. This fundamental fear has resulted in a pervasive rejection of biological contributions to behavior. Although some behavioral scientists are deterministic in their views, attributing behavior to everything from socioeconomic conditions to neurochemical events, most individuals prefer to credit their own free will for their behavior. A compromise reflecting a more accurate position on the forces behind human behavior is widely accepted, however—the theory of “conditional free will” (see Denno, 1988, for discussion of “degree determinism,” a related view).

In probabilistic or stochastic theories, numerous causes or alternatives are presented to explain an effect. Each cause has a certain probability of resulting in that outcome, in some cases a measurable probability. Because it is rarely the case that an effect can be associated with only one cause, some dynamic interaction of causes, working in concert, is frequently responsible for the final result. In the assessment of human behavior, a most complex phenomenon, it is particularly difficult to separate those causes to assess their relative contributions.

In accordance with probability theory, social human behavior is contingent on a countless number of possible decisions from among which the individual may choose. Not all of those decisions are feasible, however, nor are the resources available that are required to act on them. Choosing a course of action, therefore, is limited by preset boundaries, which narrows the range of possibilities substantially. Decision-limiting factors include current circumstances and opportunities, learning experiences, physiological abilities, and genetic predispositions. Each one of these conditions collaborates internally (physically) and externally (environmentally) to produce a final action. The behavioral result is thus restricted to options available within these guidelines, yet it is “indeterminable” and cannot be precisely predicted. Stable individuals generally behave with some degree of expectability, however. In other words, certain patterns of behavior are a common individual characteristic, and some patterns are more probable than others in a given situation in a given individual.

The principle of conditional free will does not demand a deterministic view of human behavior. Rather, it postulates that individuals choose a course of action within a preset, yet to some degree changeable, range of possibilities and that, assuming the conditions are suitable for rational thought, we are accountable for our actions. Given “rational” thought processes, calculation of risks versus the benefits, and the ability to judge the realities that exist, the result is likely to be an adaptive response, that is, the behavior will be beneficial for the individual and the surrounding environment.

This theory of conditional free will predicts that if one or more conditions to which the individual is exposed are disturbed or irregular, the individual is more likely to choose a disturbed or irregular course of action. Thus, the risk of such a response increases as a function of the number of deleterious conditions. For example, a child with a learning disability may function well in society. With the addition of family instability, lack of appropriate educational programs, and a delinquent peer group, however, the learning-disabled child may be more prone to maladaptive behavior, which may, in turn, result in actions society has defined as criminal. The child’s range of possible decisions has, in other words, been altered.

Identifying Behaviors and Populations for Study

Definitional issues are hotly debated among criminologists as a result of the growing recognition that not all “illegal” behaviors are dysfunctional or maladaptive and not all “legitimate” behaviors are moral, acceptable, or adaptive. In attempting to develop a framework for including biological perspectives in criminology, one must first identify behaviors of interest and appropriate subject populations.

The term criminality includes behaviors that do not necessarily offend all members of society, such as certain so-called victimless acts, and it excludes behaviors that may be antisocial or illegal but that are not. detected by the criminal justice system. Maladaptivity includes antisocial behaviors that are costly to citizens and society overall. Such behaviors do not necessarily violate legal norms or come to official attention, however. Individuals who display maladaptive behavior do have a high probability of being labeled as delinquent or criminal, but being so labeled is not a sufficient criterion to be identified as maladaptive. For example, schizophrenics have abnormalities in brain structure and function that cause them to behavior maladaptively; their behavior is poorly regulated, detrimental to their own well-being, and considered “deviant” by others. Nevertheless, they rarely manifest criminal tendencies. In the same vein, individuals who have been diagnosed as having antisocial personality disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 1987), a condition associated with several aberrant physiological traits (see Hare and Schalling, 1978; Howard, 1986; Yeudall et al., 1985), are more likely to violate legal norms given conducive social circumstances. Yet, the...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Series Preface
• Introduction
• PART I STATEMENTS ON THE BIOSOCIAL PERSPECTIVE
• PART II GENETICS AND CRIME
• PART III EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY AND CRIME
• PART IV NEUROSCIENCE AND CRIME
• Name Index