Due to the Horrific Types of Crimes
being perpetrated in Today’s Society Should Scientists Continue Looking for Biological
Causes of Crime?
By: Dr. Peter A. Barone, Esq.
When addressing this specific question the first issue that would come to the mind of any student who has been involved in any form of academia would be the immediate questioning of the individual who could possibly come up with a question where they are asking if scientists should continue looking for biological causes of criminality. This would basically be asking should scientists be scientists and do research regarding a question that has had several disciplines searching for an answer to this issue for thousands of years. However, in all fairness to the question, and the individual asking this particular question, I feel we must explore, discuss, and present some of the history behind the actual earlier research which was conducted by scientists, researchers, and scholars and what they proffered and what actions they advised should be taken based upon their research, hypotheses, and theories pertaining to the causation of crime.
The most logical place to begin is with stating that the earlier biological theories focused on anatomical, physiological, and genetic abnormalities possessed by the individual which they believed actually served to separate those who violated the law and those to obeyed the law. In addition to this narrow minded view they also came to the conclusion that there was a relatively miniscule amount of affect on the individuals by the social environment they were living and functioning within, thus basically advising Sociologists that their work and their theories were really irrelevant to the causation of criminal behavior.
Biological Positivism is what the earlier school of thought pertaining to biological factors causing criminal behavior was called and this theoretical approach replaced the previously popular classical school of criminology. Classical criminology basically held that people were rational and that they calculated pain and pleasure and exercised free will to commit or not to commit a criminal act., therefore they had a choice in what they did and did it voluntarily and were responsible for their actions (Barkan, 2008).
However, Biological Positivism did not share the same thought process as Classical Criminology since they believed that crime was not really a rationally reasoned behavior using assessments, making choices and using free will to commit criminal acts. The Biological Positivists believed that criminal activities are a direct result of inborn abnormalities of which there were no assessments, choice or free will used to decide to, or not to, commit a crime. They also believed that situations in life and environment could restrain or provoke criminal behavior, however these do no cause criminal behavior. They espoused that the real criminal was actually born a criminal and born with criminal traits which would cause the person to be at odds with civilized society and that is what caused him to commit crimes. The Biological Positivist believed that criminals were inherently defective and biological inferior to law abiding individuals (Lombroso, as cited in Herman, 1997).
In 1876 Cesar Lombroso wrote the Criminal Man and he actually transformed the study of criminals from metaphysicians, penologists, and moralists to a biological science. Lombroso’s focus was mainly on the physical characteristics of the individual and from his comparisons of prisoners against Italian soldiers and from this comparisons he concluded criminals were physically different from law abiding citizens, Lombroso did not take into consideration any of the physical training and nutrition received by the soldiers and the lack of nutrition and lack of physical exercise of the prisoners, or any other valid variables which could have had an influence on the correlation and should have been controlled for in the study. He decided that criminals were born this way and had the physical make-up, mental characteristics, instincts, and mental capabilities of a primitive man (Herman, 1997). Lombroso set up a list of certain physical characteristics which he stated were inherent in these born criminals and if a man was identified as possessing five of these characteristics then he was labeled and marked as a born criminal. In addition to the born criminal Lombroso recognized two other types which he labeled criminaloid, which he advised were motivated by passion or have an emotional makeup which compels the person to comit crime under the correct circumstances. The other category of insane criminals which were included by Lombroso included epileptic, imbecile, idiot, and the psychotic. Lombroso first believed the great majority of criminals as born criminal and later he revised his thought to 35% and added more economic, social and political conditions as causation and factors in crime. One of the major problems with this though process was that the theory brought into its reach certain races and categories of people as being inferior and as being born criminals which is seen as discriminatory (Lombroso as cited in Herman, 1997).
The following individuals also conducted research and proffered theories pertaining to Biological Positivism and once we discuss them we will have a better understanding as to the original question posed to us in this assignment. Charles Goring was a medical officer who wrote the English Convict in 1913 which were the findings of a long study he conducted involving convicts, soldiers, hospital patients, professors, university undergraduates and his studied proved that Lombroso was wrong. Goring accepted Lombroso’s theory that criminals are born but rejected his theory criminals as an evolutionary atavism. Goring dismissed any effects of social factors on individuals committing criminal acts and proposed criminals are inherently different to people who obeyed the law. He found significant statistical differences between civilians and criminals in the areas of weight and body stature, and to have lower IQ’s which resulted in his proffering criminals suffered from defective intelligence and from defective physique and later included moral defectiveness to include recidivists (Goring, 1913).
An Anthropologist E.A. Hooton wrote Crime and man in 1939 and attacked Goring in both his methodology and his conclusions regarding criminals via his 17,000 subject study and the typology of the prisoners and the civilians was accomplished within an elaborate typology of nationality and racial groups and another typology of criminal offenses. Hooton, and his associates, concluded that sociological factors were not important due to the fact that criminals are basically inherently inferior to non-criminals in their makeup. He believed the primary cause of criminal actions originates from biological inferiority. Hooton found Goring’s techniques deficient and Hooton’s work was also found to be criticized on several grounds. His population had police and fireman who were selected for their professions due to their physical stature to name one critical flaw. His reasoning was a case for circular reasoning and there was no way to falsify his theory and the theory was said to be true because it was true (Hunt, 1991). In the findings of Lombroso, Goring, and Hooton social and environmental factors were seen as incidental when they were compared to the certain destiny of the born physical criminals, because these individuals were born with a criminal nature because they had a defective and inferior biology which had determined them to be criminals and exhibit criminal behavior (Alers, & Sellers, 2009).
There was a major criticism of Biological Determinism by the sociologist for their ignoring or providing insufficient attention to social and economic issues, methodological flaws, lack of evidence to support their theories, and regard their theories as unfounded and inconsequential. In the recent decades it appears that publications on Biological Theories seem to be flourishing and they are in prominent journals. One of the most important things to remember regarding the earlier Biological Positivism Theories is as Akers and Sellers (2009) advise that “Much of the objection to biological theory is based on its controversial implications for policy. But the major reason for the rejection of the earlier biological theories has in reality very little to do with disciplinary or policy issues. It is simply because the theories were found to be un-testable, illogical, or wrong. They seldom withstood empirical tests and often espoused simplistic racist and sexist notions that easily crumbled under closer scrutiny. Even the strongest supporters of modern biological theories of crime and delinquency recognize that the discrediting of Lombrosian positivism was due to the serious methodological flows of these early studies and the weakness of their efforts to integrate their findings with sociological theory and data.” (Mednick, 1987 as cited in Aker and Seller, 2009). Biological criminology was seen as being simplistic and also unscientific Fishbein, 1990, as cited in Akers and Sellers, 2009), and often based on ideologically based studies, including some from Nazi Germany (Mednick, 1987).
At this point the issue “Should scientists continue looking for biological causes of criminality?” will be addressed in that current biological theorists reject the kind of simplistic biological determinism used by Biological Positivism. The newer biological research is founded on newer discoveries and also on new technical advances in the area of genetics, neurology, brain functioning, and biochemistry. The focus of today’s biological research is in the areas of biochemistry, heritability, hormonal imbalances, metabolism, IQ, genetics, neurophysiology, central, autonomic nervous system, and neurotransmitters. The new course the biological researchers have taken advise that behavior results from the interaction of the biological makeup of the human organism with the physical and social environment, which is something completely opposite from what the original Biological Positivism espoused specifically against the field of sociology. Behavioral potentials and susceptibilities they propose, can be triggered by biological factors, these factors interact with and also can be affected by the physical and social environment in which the person is exposed to. Basically we see that criminal behavior results from the interaction of biology, behavior, and the environment. Many of the new researchers are calling their endeavors biosocial rather than biological because of the acknowledgement of the social aspects of this activity. Ellis and Walsh, (1997 p. 259) pretty much sum it up by stating “the explanation of criminal behavior are likely to involve complex interplays among learning and genetic, hormonal, and neurochemical factors all operating within a complex evolved social system. We also see that genes make people different and they also make people sensitive to environmental cues and modulate a person’s responses to these particular cues or environmental situations. There genes which of course actually lead to the development of different traits and characteristics which may increase the probability of criminal behavior when a person is in certain environments and in some situations which are encountered in life (Sapolsky, 2004).
Today we see that the modern biological research and theories rely on greater theoretical sophistication which has always been identified as lacking the original theories, and there is less reliance on immutable biological destiny or defects with a more heightened focus on the interaction of the individual with psychological and social variables. In addition there is a more advanced understanding and knowledge of bodily systems, neurological, hormonal activities, genetics, and a more sophisticated theoretical methodology. The focus now for biological researches is that there is little proof to disagree with that assertion that biology interacts with the environment (Sapolsky, 2004).
The real question involves the nature of that interaction and the extent to which crime is influenced by biology or environment. The biological aspects must include association and interaction with the social or social-psychological factors. With the disengagement from the theories of Lombroso, Goring, and Hooton and the new positive view towards the interaction of biological, psychological and sociological aspects being a combined cause for criminal behavior there continues to be a definite need for scientists to continue looking for biological causes of criminality, be there proof or disproof of the theories they propose. The identification of the lack of and numerous methodological deficiencies including proper sample size, bias, lack of good statistical procedures, a good amount of generalizability, and are exceedingly inadequate in addressing relevant issues being addressed and examined and ambiguously reporting of results. All of these issues and criticisms were known by the current biological researchers and were used to guide their paths in current biological research which is benefit to all. Because of these deficiencies in past research the newer researchers have forged a path espousing the greater extent to which a biological theory proposes to relate normal physiological and sensory processes to social and environmental variables in explaining criminal behavior and this is a positive direction and one which will be empirically supported and accepted in the criminological field of research and study. The true and accurate question which must be continually examined, explored and researched by biologist, psychologist, psychiatrists, sociologists, and criminologists involves the fact that “There is little to disagree with in the assertion that biology interacts with the environment. The real question involves the nature of that interaction and the extent to which crime is influenced by biology or environment.” (Akers & Seller, 2009, p. 66).
When we look at the endeavors of the past Biological Positivist we see their skewed views, ideas and inaccurate perception of which people are criminals. Even though their theories were incorrect and not accepted, the various disciplines learned from the work they did and also came to better understand what was and was not a viable reasoning for causation of criminal behaviors. Even from the negative we learn and know what to do in future research in these critical areas of research. Any ethical research is a positive and can assist in the understanding of human beings and their actions. The manner in which the previous biological researchers performed lead the modern biological researchers in a better and more acceptable paths for critical research in the area of biological and genetic issues which when combined with psychological and sociological aspects are critical to the true understanding of human behavior and the causation of criminal behavior.
New Biological Research
Biological theories received praise hundreds of years ago with such beliefs as phrenology, which is the study of the skull and its shape and form which was performed by but over time dissipated in plausibility and popularity. It should be noted the first philosopher to locate mental facilities in the head was Aristotle; however Franz Joseph Gall was the founder of Phrenology and was a physiologist and an anatomist. He began his study of medicine at Strassburg and then began his practice as a physician. However, his energies were mainly devoted to the scientific investigation of problems which actually occupied his attention from boyhood. Gall generalized humans as having a powerful memory which is invariably associated with prominent eyes and through observation he could discern special talents for painting, music, and other arts. He believed talents and dispositions of men are dependent upon the functions of the brain, and they may be inferred with perfect exactitude and precision from the external appearances of the skull (Simpson, 2005).
The story of Phrenology actually runs from rags to riches in that it went from it peaking in popularity to the actual depths of ignominious obscurity. Today with the advent of medical scanning technology. Phrenology is enjoying a renewed public interest. Due to the use of CT scans and MRI’s it has become clear mental functions occur in specific areas of the brain. These tests have now provided the confirmation of the first tenant of Phrenology. However, it is not yet known if this vindicates the ideas of Dr. Gall, Dr. Spurzheim, and Mr. Combe (VanWyhe, 2004). Advents in modern science and medicine has led to the reinvention of biological theories are researchers examine genetics, hormones, neurotransmitters, diet, and allergies as etiologies of criminal behavior (Barkan, 2008).
According to these theories crime arises from biological differences within individuals which have the effect of making them more prone or susceptible to committing deviant acts or crimes than other individuals without this biological aspect in their physiology.
There is a large amount of studies which have provided the proof regarding the differences between the brain composition of violent individuals and those of the non violent individuals. Future research will be required in this area which should continue to produce reliable, replicable evidence demonstrating the nexus between various biological aspects of human physiology and the differences between criminals and non criminals (Sapolsky, 2004). It appears that biological theories will only gain credibility in upcoming years when more tangible evidence surfaces over time. In recent years the biological aspects of antisocial personality, crime, and violent behavior has been increasingly recognized. Several authors have stressed an association between impulsive violence and cerebral lesions (Elliott, 1992).
Pillman, Rohde, Ulrich, Draba, Sannemuller, & Marneros, (1999) studied the relationship of EEG abnormalities and violent criminal behavior in 222 defendants referred for psychiatric evaluation. There was no connection between the number of violent offenses and EEG abnormalities in general. The authors observed focal abnormalities of the left hemisphere which were related to a significantly higher number of violent offenses. The findings suggest that impairment of the left hemisphere functions may enhance the propensity for violent behavior in a subgroup of offenders.
In recent years the biological aspects of deviant behavior, antisocial personality, crime, and violent behavior have been increasingly recognized. There has been a demonstrated association between impulsive behavior, impulsive violence, and cerebral lesions. In 129 violent offenders, s strong correlation was found between neurological soft signs and the number of former convictions and early recidivism (Convit, Czobor, & Volavka, 1987). Wong, Lumsden, & Fenton, 1994) investigated inmates of a high security special hospital and specifically focused on a sub-group with the highest degree of violence was found an increased number of focal abnormalities In this group the focal abnormalities appeared to be in the temporal region. This same study demonstrated an association of violence and temporally located morphological lesions on cerebral computed tomography.
These findings were supported by a study which found left temporal focal activity in three of four subjects with repetitive impulsive violence. The electrophysiological data are supported by computed tomographic and PET findings (Volkow & Tancredi, 1987).
Miller, (1988) hypothesized in some criminals a neurodevelopmental maturation deficit affecting the dominant hemisphere of the brain may be the cause of a relative inability to use inner speech to modulate perception, thought, and then behavior. When there individuals are placed under stressful condition of social stress they regress back to using developmentally immature responses to the situations presented to them.
There is some evidence that neurodevelopmental insults can affect adult personality. Neugebauer, Hoek, & Susser (1999) reported that makes who had been exposed in utero to the Dutch famine of 1944-1945 had an increased likelihood of acquiring a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder in adulthood.
Sapolsky (2004) advised that the first study by Raine in 1994 demonstrated that aggressive behavior has been thought to come from the operation of a part of the brain called the limbic system under certain circumstances. The amygdla is the structure in the brain most often implicated in this behavior. Refrontal functions may provide an individual with the capacity to exercise judgment in the setting of complex social situations in which the actions which are taken can high significant consequences. Depending on the situation this capacity for judgment may serve the function of inhibiting limbic impulses, which could be socially inappropriate. There is a balance between the potential for impulsive aggression mediated by temporolimbic structures and the control of this drive by the influence of the oribitofrontal regions. This theory of violence has been reinforced via neuroimaging studies.
Some areas of the brain are very specifically associated with certain behaviors. The hypothalamus is a small structure on the basil surface of the brain which controls drive states such as hunger, thirst and sexual behavior. If there is damage sustained to this area, and depending on the specific area which is lesioned, the result can be compulsive eating to the point of obesity, or in severe changes of sexual drive. There are several brain structures and groups of structures when if damaged can generate behaviors which may be associated with deviant or criminal behavior. The temporal lobe is a major division of the brain’s lower lateral surface or cortex, in both the left and right hemispheres. Both memory and learning are among the cognitive function this region controls. It is also part of a larger system of the brain called the limbic system which regulates emotional behavior. If there is damage to the temporal lobe then this can be associated with a distinct loss of a person’s memory for events, impaired comprehension of language, and with aggressiveness and deviant and violent behavior Devinsky & Bear, 1984).
A further examination of this area shows that in addition to the temporal lobe the limbic system consists of brain structures which are located below the surface of the brain. These subcortical structures are involved in the primitive aspects of emotional behavior and damage to any part of a variety of limbic system structures could result in aggression or violence, hypersexuality, or even rage. In addition, a person could also experience loss of control over their aggression, and experience explosive episodes needing only the minimal of stimuli as provocation, all of this can come out of an individual having limbic system lesions (Devinsly & Bear, 1984).
The frontal lobe is large and it is the most anterior area of each hemisphere’s surface which lies behind the frontal bone in the skull. The frontal lobe is considered to be the most complex structure in the human brain. The frontal lobe is not considered fully developed until adolescences and it is what is intricately involved in a person’s self-regulation regarding a person’s behavior, judgment, planning, organizing and a person’s personality. Damage to this area is associated with gross disturbances in all of the aforementioned items it controls and regulates. Damage to this specific area of the brain is specifically relevant to criminal situations because it impairs those cognitive functions associated with an individual’s self-regulating behavior. If this mechanism is not functioning properly a person could make irrational decisions or be unable to control behavioral impulses, or accurately evaluate consequences of their actions resulting in deviant and or criminal behavior being manifested (Winslade, 2002).
Research between hormones and antisocial, aggressive behavior illustrates the complexities of biology, behavior relations, and it is clearly demonstrated that the influence of the social context on biological functioning (Dabbs, 1992), (Susman, 1993). There is convincing evidence from a wide number of behavioral studies form a link between high testosterone and increased aggressive and violent behavior in adults.
High testosterone I associated with both high dominance and high socioeconomic status, and while experience of success increases testosterone, failure reduces it (Dabbs, 1992), (Archer, 1991). Neurotramsmitter and toxin research is also beginning to provide evidence of interactions with social and environmental processes. Moffitt, Caspi, Fawcett, Brammer, Raleigh, Yuwiler, A, & Silva, (1997) found that violent offenders had higher blood serotonin levels than controls, those with both high blood serotonin and a conflicted family background were over three times more likely to become violent by age 21 compared to men with on high serotonin or with on conflicted family backgrounds. Masters, Hone, and Doshi (1998) examined 1,242 counties within the United States and found a three-way interaction between environmental lead or manganese exposure, high population density, and alcoholism rates, with highest rates of violence in counties with high densities, exposure to toxins, and alcoholism.
Neurotransmitters are chemical substances found in the brain which assist neurons transmit impulses. Researchers have discovered linked such as the aforementioned, levels of certain neurotransmitters with high levels of violent and aggressive behavior, thus resulting in a nexus between biology and criminal behavior. We see that the advances in modern biological researcher has created a better and more acceptable path for critical research in the area of biological and genetic issues which when combined with psychological and sociological aspects are critical to the true understanding of human behavior and the causation of criminal behavior.
Biological Research and its Racist, Sexist, and Class-based Stereo-types
Could such research be attacked on grounds that it promotes racist, sexist, or class-based stereo-types is another question and this an issue which is a valid question in that strictly biological theories can lead to statements and mind sets which could be construed to promote certain types of negative behavior . These theories and the theorists could interpret the best manner in which to deal with criminal behaviors in ways that could be seen as prejudice against certain genders, certain cultural groups, certain races, which could result in proposing seriously negative actions against individuals who are identified as being part of certain groups.
Lombroso suggested and assumed that whites were actually superior to non-whites and this was by heredity. Lombroso also assumed and suggested that Africans were the first human beings that evolved upwards and positively to yellow and then up to whites. Lombroso also advised that racial development was truly signified by social progress from primitive to modern. Lombroso advised he believed that on we white people have actually reached the ultimate symmetry and of properly and acceptable form, which was basically advising white’s were superior to Africans, which in turn created a racist view of on race over another (Lombroso, as cited in Herman, 1997).
Goring suggested that the people who were identified as being born with criminal traits are inherently inferior to law-abiding individuals. Goring believed this individuals to have lower intelligence levels and they were defective in the areas of physical, intelligence, and morally (Goring, 1913).
Hooton stated that “we had not realized how many of these New Americans were going to wave automatics instead of American flags, and hold up the corner grocery store rather than uphold the Constitution.” (Hooton, 1939a p. 131). Hooton defined Negro criminals as “The most underprivileged human group in this country ”(Hooton, 1939a p 290) and who were of African-American decent, while Negroids were simply members of the Negro race into which the incessant seepage of White and Indian blood and have brought about a multiplication of physical types (Hooton, 1939a p.291). In addition Hooton had a very strong tie to eugenics which is the science of improving a species via controlled breading and reproduction. He also felt that paroled offenders could be allowed to inhabit a certain segregated areas which should be provided for them by either the state of federal government. However, he favored permanent incarceration of individuals who were so genetically inferior they should not be allowed to procreate (Jones, 1986). Hooton’s work was also criticized for its racist overtones and for his blatant disregard for of characteristics which could have been considered to be important and which seemed to be of benefit to his results, in addition to the fact that he never actually presented any real tangible evidence that criminal deviance was actually in fact biologically inherited (Shafer, 1969).
Taylor suggested an intrusion into the lives of anyone who was diagnosed with any type of a genetically predisposed to the commission of crimes, and this included people diagnosed whether or not they had actually committed a criminal act or not. He advocated isolation, lobotomies, ingestion of chemicals, and also gene splicing to deal with this problem ( Taylor , 1984). Rowe (2002) suggested and supported a form of voluntary eugenics as a possibility for future behavioral genetics to control criminal behavior. Akers & Sellers, (2009) advises that certain medical procedures such as brain surgery, electrodes, and chemical castration were all used on individuals in the attempt to control and stop criminal behavior due to the belief that there needed to be an alteration of the individuals physiology.
If individuals from one particular race, gender, nationality, or culture falls into the category of possessing traits described by the various physiological or biological attributes that race, gender, nationality, or culture will be unjustly discriminated against if the Biological Positivism was supported.
Could such research be attacked on grounds that it promotes racist, sexist, or class-based stereo-types is another question and this an issue which is a valid question in that strictly biological theories can lead to statements and mind sets which could be construed to promote certain types of negative behavior. The answer to this question appears to be a yes just based upon the limited amount of information provided in the aforementioned paragraphs from the existing research in this area.
When addressing this specific question the first issue that would come to the mind of any student who has been involved in any form of academia would be the immediate questioning of the individual who could possibly come up with a question where they are asking if scientists should continue looking for biological causes of criminality. This would basically be asking should scientists be scientists and do research regarding a question that has had several disciplines searching for an answer to this issue for thousands of years. However, in all fairness to the question, and the individual asking this particular question, I feel we must explore, discuss, and present some of the history behind the actual earlier research which was conducted by scientists, researchers, and scholars and what they proffered and what actions they advised should be taken based upon their research, hypotheses, and theories pertaining to the causation of crime.
The most logical place to begin is with stating that the earlier biological theories focused on anatomical, physiological, and genetic abnormalities possessed by the individual which they believed actually served to separate those who violated the law and those to obeyed the law. In addition to this narrow minded view they also came to the conclusion that there was a relatively miniscule amount of affect on the individuals by the social environment they were living and functioning within, thus basically advising Sociologists that their work and their theories were really irrelevant to the causation of criminal behavior.
Biological Positivism is what the earlier school of thought pertaining to biological factors causing criminal behavior was called and this theoretical approach replaced the previously popular classical school of criminology. Classical criminology basically held that people were rational and that they calculated pain and pleasure and exercised free will to commit or not to commit a criminal act., therefore they had a choice in what they did and did it voluntarily and were responsible for their actions (Barkan, 2008).
However, Biological Positivism did not share the same thought process as Classical Criminology since they believed that crime was not really a rationally reasoned behavior using assessments, making choices and using free will to commit criminal acts. The Biological Positivists believed that criminal activities are a direct result of inborn abnormalities of which there were no assessments, choice or free will used to decide to, or not to, commit a crime. They also believed that situations in life and environment could restrain or provoke criminal behavior, however these do no cause criminal behavior. They espoused that the real criminal was actually born a criminal and born with criminal traits which would cause the person to be at odds with civilized society and that is what caused him to commit crimes. The Biological Positivist believed that criminals were inherently defective and biological inferior to law abiding individuals (Lombroso, as cited in Herman, 1997).
In 1876 Cesar Lombroso wrote the Criminal Man and he actually transformed the study of criminals from metaphysicians, penologists, and moralists to a biological science. Lombroso’s focus was mainly on the physical characteristics of the individual and from his comparisons of prisoners against Italian soldiers and from this comparisons he concluded criminals were physically different from law abiding citizens, Lombroso did not take into consideration any of the physical training and nutrition received by the soldiers and the lack of nutrition and lack of physical exercise of the prisoners, or any other valid variables which could have had an influence on the correlation and should have been controlled for in the study. He decided that criminals were born this way and had the physical make-up, mental characteristics, instincts, and mental capabilities of a primitive man (Herman, 1997). Lombroso set up a list of certain physical characteristics which he stated were inherent in these born criminals and if a man was identified as possessing five of these characteristics then he was labeled and marked as a born criminal. In addition to the born criminal Lombroso recognized two other types which he labeled criminaloid, which he advised were motivated by passion or have an emotional makeup which compels the person to comit crime under the correct circumstances. The other category of insane criminals which were included by Lombroso included epileptic, imbecile, idiot, and the psychotic. Lombroso first believed the great majority of criminals as born criminal and later he revised his thought to 35% and added more economic, social and political conditions as causation and factors in crime. One of the major problems with this though process was that the theory brought into its reach certain races and categories of people as being inferior and as being born criminals which is seen as discriminatory (Lombroso as cited in Herman, 1997).
The following individuals also conducted research and proffered theories pertaining to Biological Positivism and once we discuss them we will have a better understanding as to the original question posed to us in this assignment. Charles Goring was a medical officer who wrote the English Convict in 1913 which were the findings of a long study he conducted involving convicts, soldiers, hospital patients, professors, university undergraduates and his studied proved that Lombroso was wrong. Goring accepted Lombroso’s theory that criminals are born but rejected his theory criminals as an evolutionary atavism. Goring dismissed any effects of social factors on individuals committing criminal acts and proposed criminals are inherently different to people who obeyed the law. He found significant statistical differences between civilians and criminals in the areas of weight and body stature, and to have lower IQ’s which resulted in his proffering criminals suffered from defective intelligence and from defective physique and later included moral defectiveness to include recidivists (Goring, 1913).
An Anthropologist E.A. Hooton wrote Crime and man in 1939 and attacked Goring in both his methodology and his conclusions regarding criminals via his 17,000 subject study and the typology of the prisoners and the civilians was accomplished within an elaborate typology of nationality and racial groups and another typology of criminal offenses. Hooton, and his associates, concluded that sociological factors were not important due to the fact that criminals are basically inherently inferior to non-criminals in their makeup. He believed the primary cause of criminal actions originates from biological inferiority. Hooton found Goring’s techniques deficient and Hooton’s work was also found to be criticized on several grounds. His population had police and fireman who were selected for their professions due to their physical stature to name one critical flaw. His reasoning was a case for circular reasoning and there was no way to falsify his theory and the theory was said to be true because it was true (Hunt, 1991). In the findings of Lombroso, Goring, and Hooton social and environmental factors were seen as incidental when they were compared to the certain destiny of the born physical criminals, because these individuals were born with a criminal nature because they had a defective and inferior biology which had determined them to be criminals and exhibit criminal behavior (Alers, & Sellers, 2009).
There was a major criticism of Biological Determinism by the sociologist for their ignoring or providing insufficient attention to social and economic issues, methodological flaws, lack of evidence to support their theories, and regard their theories as unfounded and inconsequential. In the recent decades it appears that publications on Biological Theories seem to be flourishing and they are in prominent journals. One of the most important things to remember regarding the earlier Biological Positivism Theories is as Akers and Sellers (2009) advise that “Much of the objection to biological theory is based on its controversial implications for policy. But the major reason for the rejection of the earlier biological theories has in reality very little to do with disciplinary or policy issues. It is simply because the theories were found to be un-testable, illogical, or wrong. They seldom withstood empirical tests and often espoused simplistic racist and sexist notions that easily crumbled under closer scrutiny. Even the strongest supporters of modern biological theories of crime and delinquency recognize that the discrediting of Lombrosian positivism was due to the serious methodological flows of these early studies and the weakness of their efforts to integrate their findings with sociological theory and data.” (Mednick, 1987 as cited in Aker and Seller, 2009). Biological criminology was seen as being simplistic and also unscientific Fishbein, 1990, as cited in Akers and Sellers, 2009), and often based on ideologically based studies, including some from Nazi Germany (Mednick, 1987).
At this point the issue “Should scientists continue looking for biological causes of criminality?” will be addressed in that current biological theorists reject the kind of simplistic biological determinism used by Biological Positivism. The newer biological research is founded on newer discoveries and also on new technical advances in the area of genetics, neurology, brain functioning, and biochemistry. The focus of today’s biological research is in the areas of biochemistry, heritability, hormonal imbalances, metabolism, IQ, genetics, neurophysiology, central, autonomic nervous system, and neurotransmitters. The new course the biological researchers have taken advise that behavior results from the interaction of the biological makeup of the human organism with the physical and social environment, which is something completely opposite from what the original Biological Positivism espoused specifically against the field of sociology. Behavioral potentials and susceptibilities they propose, can be triggered by biological factors, these factors interact with and also can be affected by the physical and social environment in which the person is exposed to. Basically we see that criminal behavior results from the interaction of biology, behavior, and the environment. Many of the new researchers are calling their endeavors biosocial rather than biological because of the acknowledgement of the social aspects of this activity. Ellis and Walsh, (1997 p. 259) pretty much sum it up by stating “the explanation of criminal behavior are likely to involve complex interplays among learning and genetic, hormonal, and neurochemical factors all operating within a complex evolved social system. We also see that genes make people different and they also make people sensitive to environmental cues and modulate a person’s responses to these particular cues or environmental situations. There genes which of course actually lead to the development of different traits and characteristics which may increase the probability of criminal behavior when a person is in certain environments and in some situations which are encountered in life (Sapolsky, 2004).
Today we see that the modern biological research and theories rely on greater theoretical sophistication which has always been identified as lacking the original theories, and there is less reliance on immutable biological destiny or defects with a more heightened focus on the interaction of the individual with psychological and social variables. In addition there is a more advanced understanding and knowledge of bodily systems, neurological, hormonal activities, genetics, and a more sophisticated theoretical methodology. The focus now for biological researches is that there is little proof to disagree with that assertion that biology interacts with the environment (Sapolsky, 2004).
The real question involves the nature of that interaction and the extent to which crime is influenced by biology or environment. The biological aspects must include association and interaction with the social or social-psychological factors. With the disengagement from the theories of Lombroso, Goring, and Hooton and the new positive view towards the interaction of biological, psychological and sociological aspects being a combined cause for criminal behavior there continues to be a definite need for scientists to continue looking for biological causes of criminality, be there proof or disproof of the theories they propose. The identification of the lack of and numerous methodological deficiencies including proper sample size, bias, lack of good statistical procedures, a good amount of generalizability, and are exceedingly inadequate in addressing relevant issues being addressed and examined and ambiguously reporting of results. All of these issues and criticisms were known by the current biological researchers and were used to guide their paths in current biological research which is benefit to all. Because of these deficiencies in past research the newer researchers have forged a path espousing the greater extent to which a biological theory proposes to relate normal physiological and sensory processes to social and environmental variables in explaining criminal behavior and this is a positive direction and one which will be empirically supported and accepted in the criminological field of research and study. The true and accurate question which must be continually examined, explored and researched by biologist, psychologist, psychiatrists, sociologists, and criminologists involves the fact that “There is little to disagree with in the assertion that biology interacts with the environment. The real question involves the nature of that interaction and the extent to which crime is influenced by biology or environment.” (Akers & Seller, 2009, p. 66).
When we look at the endeavors of the past Biological Positivist we see their skewed views, ideas and inaccurate perception of which people are criminals. Even though their theories were incorrect and not accepted, the various disciplines learned from the work they did and also came to better understand what was and was not a viable reasoning for causation of criminal behaviors. Even from the negative we learn and know what to do in future research in these critical areas of research. Any ethical research is a positive and can assist in the understanding of human beings and their actions. The manner in which the previous biological researchers performed lead the modern biological researchers in a better and more acceptable paths for critical research in the area of biological and genetic issues which when combined with psychological and sociological aspects are critical to the true understanding of human behavior and the causation of criminal behavior.
New Biological Research
Biological theories received praise hundreds of years ago with such beliefs as phrenology, which is the study of the skull and its shape and form which was performed by but over time dissipated in plausibility and popularity. It should be noted the first philosopher to locate mental facilities in the head was Aristotle; however Franz Joseph Gall was the founder of Phrenology and was a physiologist and an anatomist. He began his study of medicine at Strassburg and then began his practice as a physician. However, his energies were mainly devoted to the scientific investigation of problems which actually occupied his attention from boyhood. Gall generalized humans as having a powerful memory which is invariably associated with prominent eyes and through observation he could discern special talents for painting, music, and other arts. He believed talents and dispositions of men are dependent upon the functions of the brain, and they may be inferred with perfect exactitude and precision from the external appearances of the skull (Simpson, 2005).
The story of Phrenology actually runs from rags to riches in that it went from it peaking in popularity to the actual depths of ignominious obscurity. Today with the advent of medical scanning technology. Phrenology is enjoying a renewed public interest. Due to the use of CT scans and MRI’s it has become clear mental functions occur in specific areas of the brain. These tests have now provided the confirmation of the first tenant of Phrenology. However, it is not yet known if this vindicates the ideas of Dr. Gall, Dr. Spurzheim, and Mr. Combe (VanWyhe, 2004). Advents in modern science and medicine has led to the reinvention of biological theories are researchers examine genetics, hormones, neurotransmitters, diet, and allergies as etiologies of criminal behavior (Barkan, 2008).
According to these theories crime arises from biological differences within individuals which have the effect of making them more prone or susceptible to committing deviant acts or crimes than other individuals without this biological aspect in their physiology.
There is a large amount of studies which have provided the proof regarding the differences between the brain composition of violent individuals and those of the non violent individuals. Future research will be required in this area which should continue to produce reliable, replicable evidence demonstrating the nexus between various biological aspects of human physiology and the differences between criminals and non criminals (Sapolsky, 2004). It appears that biological theories will only gain credibility in upcoming years when more tangible evidence surfaces over time. In recent years the biological aspects of antisocial personality, crime, and violent behavior has been increasingly recognized. Several authors have stressed an association between impulsive violence and cerebral lesions (Elliott, 1992).
Pillman, Rohde, Ulrich, Draba, Sannemuller, & Marneros, (1999) studied the relationship of EEG abnormalities and violent criminal behavior in 222 defendants referred for psychiatric evaluation. There was no connection between the number of violent offenses and EEG abnormalities in general. The authors observed focal abnormalities of the left hemisphere which were related to a significantly higher number of violent offenses. The findings suggest that impairment of the left hemisphere functions may enhance the propensity for violent behavior in a subgroup of offenders.
In recent years the biological aspects of deviant behavior, antisocial personality, crime, and violent behavior have been increasingly recognized. There has been a demonstrated association between impulsive behavior, impulsive violence, and cerebral lesions. In 129 violent offenders, s strong correlation was found between neurological soft signs and the number of former convictions and early recidivism (Convit, Czobor, & Volavka, 1987). Wong, Lumsden, & Fenton, 1994) investigated inmates of a high security special hospital and specifically focused on a sub-group with the highest degree of violence was found an increased number of focal abnormalities In this group the focal abnormalities appeared to be in the temporal region. This same study demonstrated an association of violence and temporally located morphological lesions on cerebral computed tomography.
These findings were supported by a study which found left temporal focal activity in three of four subjects with repetitive impulsive violence. The electrophysiological data are supported by computed tomographic and PET findings (Volkow & Tancredi, 1987).
Miller, (1988) hypothesized in some criminals a neurodevelopmental maturation deficit affecting the dominant hemisphere of the brain may be the cause of a relative inability to use inner speech to modulate perception, thought, and then behavior. When there individuals are placed under stressful condition of social stress they regress back to using developmentally immature responses to the situations presented to them.
There is some evidence that neurodevelopmental insults can affect adult personality. Neugebauer, Hoek, & Susser (1999) reported that makes who had been exposed in utero to the Dutch famine of 1944-1945 had an increased likelihood of acquiring a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder in adulthood.
Sapolsky (2004) advised that the first study by Raine in 1994 demonstrated that aggressive behavior has been thought to come from the operation of a part of the brain called the limbic system under certain circumstances. The amygdla is the structure in the brain most often implicated in this behavior. Refrontal functions may provide an individual with the capacity to exercise judgment in the setting of complex social situations in which the actions which are taken can high significant consequences. Depending on the situation this capacity for judgment may serve the function of inhibiting limbic impulses, which could be socially inappropriate. There is a balance between the potential for impulsive aggression mediated by temporolimbic structures and the control of this drive by the influence of the oribitofrontal regions. This theory of violence has been reinforced via neuroimaging studies.
Some areas of the brain are very specifically associated with certain behaviors. The hypothalamus is a small structure on the basil surface of the brain which controls drive states such as hunger, thirst and sexual behavior. If there is damage sustained to this area, and depending on the specific area which is lesioned, the result can be compulsive eating to the point of obesity, or in severe changes of sexual drive. There are several brain structures and groups of structures when if damaged can generate behaviors which may be associated with deviant or criminal behavior. The temporal lobe is a major division of the brain’s lower lateral surface or cortex, in both the left and right hemispheres. Both memory and learning are among the cognitive function this region controls. It is also part of a larger system of the brain called the limbic system which regulates emotional behavior. If there is damage to the temporal lobe then this can be associated with a distinct loss of a person’s memory for events, impaired comprehension of language, and with aggressiveness and deviant and violent behavior Devinsky & Bear, 1984).
A further examination of this area shows that in addition to the temporal lobe the limbic system consists of brain structures which are located below the surface of the brain. These subcortical structures are involved in the primitive aspects of emotional behavior and damage to any part of a variety of limbic system structures could result in aggression or violence, hypersexuality, or even rage. In addition, a person could also experience loss of control over their aggression, and experience explosive episodes needing only the minimal of stimuli as provocation, all of this can come out of an individual having limbic system lesions (Devinsly & Bear, 1984).
The frontal lobe is large and it is the most anterior area of each hemisphere’s surface which lies behind the frontal bone in the skull. The frontal lobe is considered to be the most complex structure in the human brain. The frontal lobe is not considered fully developed until adolescences and it is what is intricately involved in a person’s self-regulation regarding a person’s behavior, judgment, planning, organizing and a person’s personality. Damage to this area is associated with gross disturbances in all of the aforementioned items it controls and regulates. Damage to this specific area of the brain is specifically relevant to criminal situations because it impairs those cognitive functions associated with an individual’s self-regulating behavior. If this mechanism is not functioning properly a person could make irrational decisions or be unable to control behavioral impulses, or accurately evaluate consequences of their actions resulting in deviant and or criminal behavior being manifested (Winslade, 2002).
Research between hormones and antisocial, aggressive behavior illustrates the complexities of biology, behavior relations, and it is clearly demonstrated that the influence of the social context on biological functioning (Dabbs, 1992), (Susman, 1993). There is convincing evidence from a wide number of behavioral studies form a link between high testosterone and increased aggressive and violent behavior in adults.
High testosterone I associated with both high dominance and high socioeconomic status, and while experience of success increases testosterone, failure reduces it (Dabbs, 1992), (Archer, 1991). Neurotramsmitter and toxin research is also beginning to provide evidence of interactions with social and environmental processes. Moffitt, Caspi, Fawcett, Brammer, Raleigh, Yuwiler, A, & Silva, (1997) found that violent offenders had higher blood serotonin levels than controls, those with both high blood serotonin and a conflicted family background were over three times more likely to become violent by age 21 compared to men with on high serotonin or with on conflicted family backgrounds. Masters, Hone, and Doshi (1998) examined 1,242 counties within the United States and found a three-way interaction between environmental lead or manganese exposure, high population density, and alcoholism rates, with highest rates of violence in counties with high densities, exposure to toxins, and alcoholism.
Neurotransmitters are chemical substances found in the brain which assist neurons transmit impulses. Researchers have discovered linked such as the aforementioned, levels of certain neurotransmitters with high levels of violent and aggressive behavior, thus resulting in a nexus between biology and criminal behavior. We see that the advances in modern biological researcher has created a better and more acceptable path for critical research in the area of biological and genetic issues which when combined with psychological and sociological aspects are critical to the true understanding of human behavior and the causation of criminal behavior.
Biological Research and its Racist, Sexist, and Class-based Stereo-types
Could such research be attacked on grounds that it promotes racist, sexist, or class-based stereo-types is another question and this an issue which is a valid question in that strictly biological theories can lead to statements and mind sets which could be construed to promote certain types of negative behavior . These theories and the theorists could interpret the best manner in which to deal with criminal behaviors in ways that could be seen as prejudice against certain genders, certain cultural groups, certain races, which could result in proposing seriously negative actions against individuals who are identified as being part of certain groups.
Lombroso suggested and assumed that whites were actually superior to non-whites and this was by heredity. Lombroso also assumed and suggested that Africans were the first human beings that evolved upwards and positively to yellow and then up to whites. Lombroso also advised that racial development was truly signified by social progress from primitive to modern. Lombroso advised he believed that on we white people have actually reached the ultimate symmetry and of properly and acceptable form, which was basically advising white’s were superior to Africans, which in turn created a racist view of on race over another (Lombroso, as cited in Herman, 1997).
Goring suggested that the people who were identified as being born with criminal traits are inherently inferior to law-abiding individuals. Goring believed this individuals to have lower intelligence levels and they were defective in the areas of physical, intelligence, and morally (Goring, 1913).
Hooton stated that “we had not realized how many of these New Americans were going to wave automatics instead of American flags, and hold up the corner grocery store rather than uphold the Constitution.” (Hooton, 1939a p. 131). Hooton defined Negro criminals as “The most underprivileged human group in this country ”(Hooton, 1939a p 290) and who were of African-American decent, while Negroids were simply members of the Negro race into which the incessant seepage of White and Indian blood and have brought about a multiplication of physical types (Hooton, 1939a p.291). In addition Hooton had a very strong tie to eugenics which is the science of improving a species via controlled breading and reproduction. He also felt that paroled offenders could be allowed to inhabit a certain segregated areas which should be provided for them by either the state of federal government. However, he favored permanent incarceration of individuals who were so genetically inferior they should not be allowed to procreate (Jones, 1986). Hooton’s work was also criticized for its racist overtones and for his blatant disregard for of characteristics which could have been considered to be important and which seemed to be of benefit to his results, in addition to the fact that he never actually presented any real tangible evidence that criminal deviance was actually in fact biologically inherited (Shafer, 1969).
Taylor suggested an intrusion into the lives of anyone who was diagnosed with any type of a genetically predisposed to the commission of crimes, and this included people diagnosed whether or not they had actually committed a criminal act or not. He advocated isolation, lobotomies, ingestion of chemicals, and also gene splicing to deal with this problem ( Taylor , 1984). Rowe (2002) suggested and supported a form of voluntary eugenics as a possibility for future behavioral genetics to control criminal behavior. Akers & Sellers, (2009) advises that certain medical procedures such as brain surgery, electrodes, and chemical castration were all used on individuals in the attempt to control and stop criminal behavior due to the belief that there needed to be an alteration of the individuals physiology.
If individuals from one particular race, gender, nationality, or culture falls into the category of possessing traits described by the various physiological or biological attributes that race, gender, nationality, or culture will be unjustly discriminated against if the Biological Positivism was supported.
Could such research be attacked on grounds that it promotes racist, sexist, or class-based stereo-types is another question and this an issue which is a valid question in that strictly biological theories can lead to statements and mind sets which could be construed to promote certain types of negative behavior. The answer to this question appears to be a yes just based upon the limited amount of information provided in the aforementioned paragraphs from the existing research in this area.
References
Archer, J. (1991).
The influence of testosterone on human aggression. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 82, 1-28.
Barkan, S. E. (2008).
Criminology: A sociological understanding (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River , NJ :
Prentice Hall.
Bartol, C.R. (1995).
Criminal Behavior: A Psychological Approach (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Cohen, L. &
Swift, S. (1993). A public health approach to the violence epidemic in the
United States . Environmental and Urbanization Vol. 5, No 2, October pp. 50-66.
Crutchfield, R.D.,
Bridges, G.S., Weis, J.G. (1996). Crime, Pine Forge Press.
Cooney, M. (2006).
The criminological potential of pure sociology. Crime, law and social change,
46 (1), 51-64.
Dabbs, J. M. (1992).
Testosterone measurements in social and clinical psychology. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 11, 302-321.
Devinsky, O. &
Bear, D. (1984). Varieties of aggressive behavior in temporal lobe epilepsy.
American Journal of Psychiatry 141: pp.651-656.
Dolan, M., &
Doyle, M. (2000). Violence Risk Prediction: clinical and actuarial measures and
the role of the psychopathy check list. British Journal of Psychiatry, 177
pp.303-311.
Elliot, F.A. (1992).
Violence the neurological contributions: an overview Arch Neurol 1992;
49:595-602.
Friedel, R.O. (2004).
Dopamine dysfunction in borderline personality disorder: a hypothesis.
Neuropsychopharmacology, 29 (6), 1029-1045.
Gibson, J. J. (1996).
The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston .
Goring, C.B. (1913).
The English Convict: A Statistical Study London: H.M.S.O., reprint, Montclair ,
New Jersey : Patterson Smith, 1972.
Hayward , v., Astley,
O.R., Cruz-Hernandez, M., Grant, D., Robles-De-La-Torre, G. (2004). Haptic
interfaces and devices, Sensor Review 24(1).
Herman, A. (1997).
"The Idea of Decline in Western History". pp. 110–113.
Burke, R.(2001) An
Introduction to Criminological Theory. Willam Publishing, Devon
Hunt, E.E. (1991).
The old and the new physical anthropology in the careers of E.A. Hooton and
W.M. Krogman. American journal of human biology, 3,(6), 563-569.
Jones, D.A. (1986).
History of criminology: A philosophical perspective. New York : Greenwood
Press.
Lombroso, as cited in
Herman, A. (1997). “The Idea of Decline in Western History”. P. 116.
Masters, R. D., Hone, B., & Doshi, A. (1998). Environmental pollution, neurotoxicity, and criminal violence. In J. Rose (Ed.), Environmental toxicology: Current developments (pp. 13-48). New York : Gordon and Breach.
Masters, R. D., Hone, B., & Doshi, A. (1998). Environmental pollution, neurotoxicity, and criminal violence. In J. Rose (Ed.), Environmental toxicology: Current developments (pp. 13-48). New York : Gordon and Breach.
McIlwaine, C. &
Moser, C. (2001). Violence and social capital in urban poor communities:
perspectives from Colombia and Guatemala . Journal of International Development
Vol. 13, No 7, pp.965-984.
Miller, L. (1988).
Neuropsychological perspectives on delinquency. Behavioral Science Law 6: pp.409-428.
Moffitt, T. E.,
Caspi, A., Fawcett, P., Brammer, G. L., Raleigh , M., Yuwiler, A,, & Silva,
P. (1997). Whole blood serotonin and family background relate to male violence.
In A. Raine, P. A. Brennan, D. P. Farrington, & S. A. Mednick (Eds.), Biosocial
bases of violence (pp. 231-249). New York : Plenum.
Pillmann, F, Rohde,
A., Ulrich, S., Draba, S., Sannemuller, & Marneros, A. (1999). Violence,
criminal behavior, and the eeg: significance of left hemispheric focal
abnormalities. Journal of Neuropsyhiatry Clinical Neuro Science 11:4 Fall.
Rowe , D.C. (2002).
Biology and Crime. Los Angeles : Roxbury.
Sapolsky, R. M.
(2004). The frontal cortex and the criminal justice system, philosophical
transactions of the royal society. Biological Sciences 359, no. 1451 pp.1787
-1796.
Simpson, D. (2005).
Phrenologyand the neurosciences: contributions of F.J. Gall and J.G.
Spurzheim ANZ Journal
of Surgery. Oxford . Vol.75.6; pp. 475.
Susman, E. J. (1993).
Psychological, contextual, and psychobiological interactions: A developmental
perspective on conduct disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 181-189.
Shafer, S. (1969).
Theories in criminology: Past and present philosophies of the crime problem.
New York : Random House.
Taylor, L. (1984).
Born to Crime: The Genetic Causes of Criminal Behavior. Westport CT : Greenwood
.
Van Wyhe, J. (2004).
Phrenology and the origins of Victorian scientific naturalism, Ashgate
Publishing Company pp. 27.
Volkow, N.D, &
Tancredi, L. (1987). Neural substrates of violent behavior: trait and state.
Journal of Psyhiatry 151: pp.668-673.
Winslade, W.J.
(2002). Traumatic brain injury and legal responsibility. In Marcus S.J. (ed.).
Neuroethics: Mapping the Field Conference Proceedings May 13-14, 2002, San
Francisco , California . Dana Press: New York , 2002:pp.74-82.
