biological explanations of offending behaviour

Historical approach

Atavistic form was an early biological explanation for criminal behaviour which was proposed by Cesare Lombroso in 1870's.

Lombroso suggested that criminals were 'genetic throwbacks' – a primitive sub-species who were biologically different from non-criminals. Offenders were seen by Lombroso as lacking evolutionary development, their savage and untamed nature meant that they would find it impossible to adjust to the demands of a civilised society and would inevitably turn to crime. Therefore, he argued that criminals were not to blame for their activities as their behaviour was determined by their physiology.

His work centred on the idea that criminals had distinguishing physical features which originatedfrom a more primitive stage of development. These biologically determined 'atavistic' characteristics, mainly features of the face and head made criminals physically different to non-criminals.

The atavistic form included a narrow sloping brow, a strong prominent jaw, high cheekbones and facial asymmetry. Other physical features included dark skin and the existence of extra toes, nipples or fingers.

Lombroso went on to categorise particular types of criminal in terms of their physical and facial characteristics:

• Murderers were describes as having bloodshot eyes, curly hair and long ears

• Sexual deviants - glinting eyes, swollen fleshy lips and projecting ears

• Fraudsters – thin lips and ‘reedy

evaluation of the atavistic form

1. supporting research - Lombroso examined the facial and cranial features of Italian convicts, both living (3839) and dead (383) and concluded that 40% of criminal acts could be accounted for by atavistic characteristics. However, Lombroso did not compare his criminal sample with a non-criminal control group, if he had the significant differences in atavistic form that Lombroso reported may have disappeared. This significantly reduces the extent to which Lombroso's research supports his atavistic form theory. Contradictory-Goring (1913) conducted a comparison between 3000 criminals and 3000 non-criminals and concluded that there was no evidence that offenders are a distinct group with unusual facial and cranial characteristics. This challenges Lombroso's theory that criminals have distinct physical characteristics demonstrating that Lombroso’s research lacks reliability as his findings are not replicated.

2. issues and debates - One issue with Lombroso’s atavistic theory is that it is biologically determinist. He believed that criminals were biologically different to non-criminals and so criminality was innate and inherited. This is an issue because it removes blame and responsibility for criminal behaviour which isn’t compatible with the criminal justice system in the UK. A bigger issue though is the ethical implications of this determinism, i.e its eugenic implications. Believing in this theory introduces the possibility of irradicating criminality by only allowing particular people without atavistic features to produce children.

3. issues and debates - One issue with the atavistic theory is that it is socially sensitive. This is because there are racial undertones within Lombroso’s work. Many of the atavistic features that are linked to offenders and this “sub-species” (e.g. dark skin, curly hair) are most likely found among people of African descent. This theory then can have negative implications on this group of people and could lead to discrimination and inaccurate and negative stereotypes that certain racial groups are more likely to be criminals. This is one of the reasons why this theory is not used within criminology today.

4. application - Despite the issues with Lombroso’s research, it helped to shift the emphasis in crime research away from a simple form of moral explanation (offenders judged as wicked and weak-minded) to a more scientific and credible view (evolutionary and genetic). Also, in trying to describe how particular types of people are likely to commit particular crimes, Lombroso's theory, could be seen as the beginning of criminal profiling. In this way he made a major contribution to the science of criminal psychology and can be seen as a forerunner of more scientific biological explanations of offending.

genetics and neural explanations

Genetic explanations of offending suggest that offenders inherit a gene or a combination of genes that predisposes them to commit crime and so the closer a person is genetically to an offender the more at risk they are of becoming an offender themselves. Genetic explanations for offending however, focus on ‘criminal’ genes such as the MAOA gene.

MAOA gene

The candidate gene MAOA has been linked to offending. A fault/variation on this gene leads to lower levels of monoamine oxidase being released, an enzyme that breaks downs serotonin and so this means that there are higher levels of serotonin than usual. This has been linked to increased levels of aggression and violence as individuals with these increased levels of serotonin are hypersensitive, so are affected by more negative experiences and thus react more aggressively leading to an increased risk of offending. This variation is also known as the warrior gene.

neural explanations

Neural explanations suggest there may be neural differences in the brains of criminals and noncriminals. Much of the evidence in this area has investigated individuals diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder (formerly known as psychopathy) – APD. APD is associated with reduced emotional responses and a lack of empathy. It is a condition that characterises many convicted criminals.

Prefrontal cortex: Brain imaging studies have found that individuals with antisocial personalities have less brain matter in the prefrontal cortex than control groups and had lower activation or activity of the pre-frontal cortex. The role of the prefrontal cortex includes regulation of emotional behaviour, and so lower activation or a dysfunction can lead to impulsiveness and lack of self-control which makes a person at increased risk of offending.

Amygdala: The amygdala, found in the limbic system, is a part of the brain involved in fear, aggression and social interactions and has been implicated in offending. The activation of the amygdala has been linked to offending with lower levels of serotonin thought to inhibit the amygdala activity. This lower activation of the amygdala means a person may recognize a person is afraid but may not feel concern or empathy or really care that they are. These lower levels of serotonin are also linked to aggression so the combination of lack of empathy and aggression again increases the risk of offending.

evaluation of the biological explanations

1. research (genetic) - Evidence from twin and adoption studies partially supports genetic explanations of offending. Twin- Raine (1993) for example found higher rates of concordance for criminality for MZ twins as 52% and 21% for DZ twins. However, these concordance rates are not high and leave plenty of room for non-genetic environmental factors. Adoption- Crowe (1972) found that adopted children who had a biological parent with a criminal record had a 50% risk of having a criminal record by the age of 18, whereas adopted children whose mother didn’t have a criminal record only had a 5% risk. This suggests that regardless of the changed environment, the children seemed biologically predisposed to criminality

2. research (MAOA) - Tiihonen (2014) studied two independent cohorts of Finnish prisoners and found that the variation on the MAOA gene was associated with extremely violent behavior (at least 10 committed homicides, attempted homicides or batteries). No substantial signal was observed for MAOA among non-violent offenders, indicating that findings were specific for violent offending, and not largely attributable to substance abuse or antisocial personality disorder. These results indicate low monoamine metabolism as plausible factors in the cause of extreme criminal violent behavior

3. research (neural) - Prefrontal cortex: Raine(2000) found an 11% reduction in brain matter in the pre-frontal cortex of those with APD compared to a control group and Raine (2004) citied 71 brain imaging studies showing that murderers, psychopaths and violent individuals have reduced functioning in the prefrontal cortex. Amygdala: Kent (2001) compared with criminal non-psychopaths and non-criminal control participants, criminal psychopaths showed significantly less affect-related activity in the amygdala as well as other areas in the limbic system

4. determinism (used for all 3) - One limitation of biological explanations of offending behaviour is that they are biologically determinist. They suggest that those who inherit the genetic mutation, have lower activation in the pre-frontal cortex or amygdala when under stress are predisposed to become aggressive or lose control and therefore are very likely to engage in criminal behaviour. The issue here is it is effectively saying that these people will be aggressive and commit crime and when they do, it is not their responsibility or in fact their fault. This is clearly not a totally logical explanation to use at it has been shown that people with the warrior gene or who have lower activation in the amygdala or pre-frontal cortex don't display this criminal behaviour and vice versa. The biological explanations also don’t fit with our justice system as if a person with this gene did commit a criminal act, they would still be held responsible which also reduces the usefulness of the explanation

5. biological reductionist (all 3) - One limitation of biological explanations of offending is that they are biologically reductionist. They are the lowest level of explanation as believe offending is down to purely biological factors such as a fault on the maoa gene or lower activation in the prefrontal cortex or amygdala. However to reduce something as complex as criminality down to just biology is oversimplistic and inappropriate. Wider factors need to be looked at when explain offending such as social context, substance abuse, mental illness, upbringing as crime does appear to run in families but so do emotional instability, mental illness, social deprivation and poverty. This means it is difficult to separate the effects of genes and neural influences from other possible factors

6. causation (all 3) - An issue with biological explanations of offending is that cause and effect cannot be established in any human studies. All the research support (used above) relies on correlation so other variables could be responsible for the offending behaviour. For example, brain scanning studies show pathology in brains of criminal psychopaths but cannot conclude whether these abnormalities are genetic or signs of early abuse problems. Altered biological function may be a consequence of offending behaviour or upbringing rather than a cause.

7. diathesis stress model - Evidence suggest that an interactionalist explanation of offending may be most appropriate. A longitudinal study following 1000’s of new Zealanders over decades found that the variation of the MAOA gene on its own was not enough to predict violent behaviour. They found that those with a history of violence had the faulty maoa gene AND difficulty childhood experiences. Suggesting that environmental factors are needed alongside the biological factors to trigger violence and offending behaviours so on their own biological explanations aren’t enough