Evolutionary Criminology

Towards a Comprehensive Explanation of Crime

Russil Durrant, Tony Ward

• Publisher: Academic Press
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9780123979377
• eBook ISBN: 9780123984937
• Topic: Derecho
• Subtopic: Ciencias forenses

In our attempts to understand crime, researchers typically focus on proximate factors such as the psychology of offenders, their developmental history, and the social structure in which they are embedded. While these factors are important, they don't tell the whole story. Evolutionary Criminology: Towards a Comprehensive Explanation of Crime explores how evolutionary biology adds to our understanding of why crime is committed, by whom, and our response to norm violations. This understanding is important both for a better understanding of what precipitates crime and to guide approaches for effectively managing criminal behavior. This book is divided into three parts. Part I reviews evolutionary biology concepts important for understanding human behavior, including crime. Part II focuses on theoretical approaches to explaining crime, including the evolution of cooperation, and the evolutionary history and function of violent crime, drug use, property offending, and white collar crime. The developmental origins of criminal behavior are described to account for the increase in offending during adolescence and early adulthood as well as to explain why some offenders are more likely to desist than others. Proximal causes of crime are examined, as well as cultural and structural processes influencing crime. Part III considers human motivation to punish norm violators and what this means for the development of a criminal justice system. This section also considers how an evolutionary approach contributes to our understanding of crime prevention and reduction. The section closes with an evolutionary approach to understanding offender rehabilitation and reintegration. - Reviews how evolutionary findings improve our understanding of crime and punishment - Examines motivations to offend, and to punish norm violators - Articulates evolutionary explanations for adolescent crime increase - Identifies how this knowledge can aid in crime prevention and reduction, and in offender rehabilitation

Chapter 1

Criminology and Evolutionary Theory

Abstract

Criminology has been a recognized field of scholarly inquiry for more than a century. Even so, our understanding of crime and its causes could be enhanced by consideration of the more distal causes of criminal behavior, an analysis that remains largely unrealized to date. One approach that has been almost completely ignored is the evolutionary approach to criminology and the understanding of criminal behavior. In this chapter, we argue for greater inclusion of evolutionary theory in the interdisciplinary approach that has come to characterize criminology. In recognizing that mainstream criminology has largely neglected evolutionary explanations for criminal behavior, we consider several possible reasons for this neglect, and suggest ways for integrating evolutionary approaches within criminology. In the remainder of the book, we elaborate on and illustrate how this can be accomplished.

Keywords

Anthropology; Crime research; Criminal law; Criminology; Evolutionary theory; Evolutionary theory of crime; History of crime; Interdisciplinary approaches; Political science; Psychology; Sociology

Introduction

Depending on exactly when one wants to let off the starting gun, criminology as an organized field of scholarly inquiry is no more than about 140 years old (Godfrey, Lawrence, & Williams, 2008). The phenomenon of crime is, of course, much older. How much older? The first codified laws of which we have any detailed knowledge come from Babylonia around 1760 BCE, so the origin of crime as “lawbreaking” dates from this period. All human groups, however, set norms that prescribe acceptable behavior and mete out punishment to those individuals who violate these norms (Boehm, 2012), and the phenomena that are the primary foci of criminologists—violence, rape, punishment, and the appropriation of resources from others—are part of the “deep history” (Shryock & Smail, 2011) of humankind. In their efforts to provide explanations for criminal behavior, criminologists, forensic psychologists, and others largely focus on proximate factors such as the psychological characteristics of offenders, their developmental history, and the social structure in which they are embedded. These types of explanations are clearly important. They have proven valuable in the development of theories and models of offending that have had some success in both accounting for crime and guiding approaches to effectively managing criminal behavior. We suggest, however, that our understanding of crime and the way that we respond to it can be significantly enriched through a consideration of the more distal causes of criminal behavior—those that reside in the evolutionary history of our species. Moreover, a more comprehensive approach to understanding crime and responding to criminal behavior, we claim, can be achieved through the integration of evolutionary approaches with those that focus on more proximal causal factors.

In this book we make one—longish—argument for this approach. Our aim in this opening chapter is more modest. We first clarify what we take as the core subject matter of criminology. Then we make the empirical case that—despite the interdisciplinary aspirations of many criminologists—mainstream criminology has almost completely neglected evolutionary explanations in its attempts to understand the nature of crime and our responses to it. We consider several possible reasons for this neglect and suggest that the time is ripe for a careful consideration of how evolutionary approaches can be integrated within criminology. In the remainder of the book we elaborate on and illustrate how this can be accomplished.

The Subject Matter of Criminology

Not all criminologists are in complete agreement about exactly what discipline they are part of, and some argue that criminology should not be considered an academic discipline at all (Garland, 2011). We suggest, however, that criminology can reasonably be described as an applied social and behavioral science. As such, criminology is organized around a particular set of phenomena—very roughly, crime and our responses to crime—rather than a specific level of analysis like sociology or psychology (Agnew, 2011a). In this respect, criminology is somewhat like medicine—an applied area of study undergirded by a number of basic sciences or academic disciplines. For criminology, the key areas of inquiry include—but are not limited to—sociology, psychology, anthropology, political science, history, and law. As we note below, some of these disciplines—notably sociology—feature more prominently than others, and one of the main aims of this book is to argue for a more thoroughgoing inclusion of evolutionary biology into the field of criminology.

Even if we accept that criminology can be reasonably considered a discipline in its own right, there remains some disagreement regarding the scope of its domain, and criminologists have devoted a considerable amount of energy to the task of defining just what constitutes “crime.” The most straightforward approach, paraded in every introductory textbook, is to define crime in legal terms: criminal acts are those that violate the criminal law and are therefore subject to sanction by the state. The major objection to this definition is that by defining crime in purely legal terms, the subject matter of criminology becomes a moving target, as what constitutes a criminal act varies both historically and cross-culturally. Many also argue that this definition of crime is both too narrow and too broad: it excludes many harmful acts while including many that result in relatively little or no harm (Agnew, 2011a). In response to these objections (and others), many criminologists prefer a definition of crime that is not yoked exclusively to what is currently proscribed by the law, while others have suggested that the focus on crime sensu stricto is a mistake and urge the acceptance of a “crime-free criminology” (Gottfredson, 2011). Agnew (2011a, p. 187) argues for a more inclusive definition of crime that can be defined as “acts that cause blameworthy harm, are condemned by the public, and/or are sanctioned by the state.” We think that there is much merit in Agnew’s analysis. A much simpler solution, however, is to accept that crime should be defined in purely legal terms, but the subject matter of criminology includes more than just crime. How much more? We suggest, largely consistent with Agnew’s (2011a) approach, that criminologists should be concerned with three overlapping kinds of phenomena:

1. Intentionally harmful acts;

2. Acts that violate consensually held social norms and are subject to sanctions by group members; and

3. Acts that violate codified laws and are subject to punishment by the state.

Most criminologists accept that harmful acts form a central component of the subject matter of their discipline. Agnew suggests that the focus should be on blameworthy harms, with harm defined as acts that violate fundamental human rights. We think there is much value in this more inclusive perspective on harm, but—consistent with our overall evolutionary approach—suggest that intentionally harmful acts are those carried out voluntarily that negatively affect the biological fitness of others. Murder is the ultimate in intentionally harmful acts, because it entails the elimination of any further opportunities to promote reproductive success by the victim. Many other acts also negatively affect biological fitness in lesser ways. Bullying, verbal derogation, and sexual harassment, for instance, may all reduce or limit the survival or reproductive opportunities of others (e.g., through a reduction in status or reputation). This broad definition also encompasses the many harmful acts that have been the focus of critical criminologists such as state-sponsored collective violence, discrimination, corporate maleficence, and the failure to provide health care to those in need. Acts that harm the environment or other species can also be included here, as they have an impact on the biological fitness of other species. Of course, some of these acts are going to be of more enduring interest to criminologists than others (state-sponsored genocide understandably attracts more attention than the use of pesticides to eradicate insect populations), and defining intentional harm in this way does not necessarily imply that these acts are either morally wrong or that they should be subject to sanctions by the state.

The second set of overlapping phenomena that we suggest should form the subject matter of criminology concerns those acts that violate consensually held social norms. These acts are largely those that Agnew refers to in his definition as “condemned by the public.” There are two key aspects to these acts. First, they violate consensually held social norms. The importance of social norms for group cohesion and collective action is a recurring theme in this book and features prominently in evolutionary approaches to understanding the nature of human cooperation (e.g., Bowles & Gintis, 2011; Richerson & Boyd, 2005; see Chapter 5). All human groups have norms that are typically explicitly articulated and that prescribe the domain of appropriate behavior. Many of these norms clearly relate to intentionally harmful acts, but norms also regulate a wide class of behaviors such as what food can be eaten and when, who is an appropriate marriage partner, and how individuals of different standing should address one another. Second, these acts are subject to some form of sanction by group members—from verbal admonishments to social exclusion and physical punishment.

The final set of acts that we suggest should form the subject matter of criminology are those that violate the criminal law and are subject to punishment by the state—in short, criminal acts.

Much of the subject matter of criminology concerns behaviors that are intentionally harmful, violate consensually held norms, and break the law. There are, however, important acts that fall into only one or two of these classes of behavior and that, arguably, should also be of interest to criminologists. The three sets of phenomena, when viewed through the lens of evolutionary theory, also have a relatively clear history. Intentionally harmful acts are clearly the oldest class of behaviors in evolutionary terms and reflect the relentless logic of natural and sexual selection (see Chapter 2), as organisms that manage to advance their own survival and reproductive success at the expense of others are more likely to be represented in subsequent generations. As such, intentionally harmful acts predate the origin of our species and—given suitable license to the term “intentional”—must have been present in the earliest organisms. The second set of behaviors that form the subject matter of criminology are, however, much more recent. Although some have argued that chimpanzees have something like a sense of “social justice,” and a number of species may “police” in-group behavior that threatens group functioning (see Brosnan & de Waal, 2012; Clutton-Brock & Parker, 1995), the existence of consciously articulated social norms is unique to our lineage, probably emerging sometime around two million years ago (see Chapter 2). The final set of acts is more recent still, because it relies on the emergence of both writing (criminal acts are codified) and the state.

In sum, we suggest that the subject matter of criminology is largely concerned with: (1) acts that are intentionally harmful, that violate consensually held social norms, and/or violate codified laws and are subject to sanction by the state; (2) the consequences of these acts for others (“victims”); and (3) responses to these acts in terms of punishment, prevention, and rehabilitation. We appreciate that there are many criminologists who would not be entirely satisfied with how we construe the field of criminology. Brisman (2012), for instance, contends that criminology is more than the study of crime (even broadly construed) and responses to crime, and suggests that we should also study—among other topics—“what crime means to people” (p. 60) and what crime (and responses to crime) can tell us about cultural values and social structures. Similarly, many criminologists are interested in how crime and responses to crime are represented, with a particular focus on the presentation and consumption of crime in the media and what that can tell us about the nature of society. In...

Table of contents

• Cover image
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Copyright
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Chapter 1. Criminology and Evolutionary Theory
• Part I. The Evolutionary Framework
• Part II. Explaining Crime
• Part III. Responding to Crime
• References
• Index