ao3x2

intro

One biological explanation of criminal behavior is inherited criminality. 

supporting

• Study: Dutch family with shortened MAOA gene (MAOA-L).

• Findings:

  • All male family members had the genetic defect.

  • Showed aggressive and antisocial behaviours when threatened, frightened, angry, or frustrated.

  • Examples: impulsive aggression, arson, attempted rape, exhibitionism.

• Implication:

  • Shared gene linked to shared criminal/antisocial traits → supports genetic explanation of criminality.

  • Suggests potential for interventions if candidate genes influencing criminality can be identified.

refuting

• Population limitation:

  • Shortened MAOA gene (MAOA-L) only found in ~1/3 of men in Western populations.

  • Aggression in 2/3 of men and most women is not explained by this gene.

• Implication:

  • MAOA cannot account for all criminal behaviour.

  • Other genetic, biological, psychological, and environmental factors must be considered.

methodological

• Problem: Difficult to separate genetic (nature) vs environmental (nurture) influences.

• Evidence: Concordance rates in twins not 100%, showing genes alone do not fully explain criminal behaviour.

• Implication:

  • Similarities in twins/family studies could be due to shared environment rather than shared genes.

  • Weakness: Makes it hard to isolate genetic effects on criminality.

intro

A second biological explanation of criminality is brain structure and the role of the amygdala. 

supporting

• Study: Gospic et al. (2011)

  • Used Ultimatum Game to measure aggressive responses to unfair monetary offers.

  • fMRI measured amygdala activity during decision-making.

• Findings:

  • Rejecting unfair offers → heightened and faster amygdala activation.

  • Demonstrates clear link between amygdala activity and aggressive behaviour.

• Strength:

  • Objective, scientific method → compelling support for brain structure explanation of criminal behaviour.

refuting

• Serotonin:

  • Normally inhibitory, has a calming effect and stabilises mood.

  • Works in frontal cortex to inhibit amygdala activity.

• Implications of low serotonin:

  • Reductions → more impulsive and aggressive behaviour.

  • Suggests that neurotransmitter imbalances, rather than structural brain abnormalities alone, may drive criminal behaviour.

• Key point:

  • Understanding neurochemical influences may explain aggression better than purely looking at brain structures.

• Neurotransmitter, normally inhibitory.

• Has a calming effect, stabilises mood.

• In the frontal cortex, inhibits activity of the amygdala.

Low Serotonin (AO1)

• Less inhibition of amygdala → more impulsive, aggressive behaviour.

• Suggests neurochemical imbalances may drive aggression.

• Goes beyond just looking at structural brain abnormalities.

Key Point (AO1)

• Neurochemistry (e.g., serotonin levels) may explain aggression better than structure alone.

methodogical

• Problem: Most research focuses on violent or aggressive behaviour.

• Limitation: Criminal behaviour also includes non-violent crimes (theft, fraud, drug use, bigamy).

• Implication:

  • Brain structure explanations may not account for all types of criminal behaviour.

  • Cannot be relied on as a sole explanation of criminality

reductionist

• Issue: Biological explanations oversimplify criminal behaviour, focusing on a few processes:

  • Inherited criminality: reduced to candidate genes (e.g., MAOA).

  • Brain structures: reduced to functions of specific areas (e.g., amygdala, hypothalamus).

• Limitation:

  • Ignores other risk factors (environmental, social, psychological).

  • Social-psychological factors like poverty, gender socialization, upbringing are important.

• Implication:

  • Biological explanations cannot be the sole explanation of criminal behaviour.

  • A holistic approach combining biological and social-psychological factors is needed.

deterministc

• Issue: Inherited criminality and brain structure explanations are biologically deterministic.

  • Suggests genes or brain abnormalities inevitably lead to criminal behaviour.

• Limitation:

  • Ignores free will and environmental influences.

  • Oversimplifies the complex interplay of factors in criminal behaviour.

  • Raises ethical concerns, e.g., stigmatization or excusing actions based solely on biology.

• Implication:

  • Deterministic nature makes biological explanations incomplete and ethically controversial.

conclusion

In conclusion, biological explanations offer objective, scientific insights into criminal behavior, but the diathesis-stress model highlights the importance of combining biological predispositions with environmental factors like childhood experiences for a holistic understanding.