Biosocial criminology

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Acadēmica Orientālis (talk | contribs) at 18:49, 1 May 2012 (→Evolutonary psychology: citation needed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:49, 1 May 2012 by Acadēmica Orientālis (talk | contribs) (→Evolutonary psychology: citation needed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (April 2010)

Biosocial criminology is an interdisciplinary field that aims to explain crime and antisocial behavior by exploring both biological factors and environmental factors. While contemporary criminology has been dominated by sociological theories, biosocial criminology also recognizes the potential contributions of fields such as genetics, neuropsychology, and evolutionary psychology.

History

Historically, the role of biology was seen as much more important, and early, 19th-century crimonological theories were heavily influenced by biological notions; for example Cesare Lombroso argued that criminals are unevolved, "barbaric" humans who can be identified by shared, "primitive", physical characteristics. With the passage of time and the advent of the 20th century, the nature vs nurture argument came to be dominated by an absolutist nurture faction, and theories related to the importance of biology on criminal behavior were seen as obsolete. In the second half of the twentieth century, however, such theories began to be revisited. While no longer doubting the significant impact of environmental factors, arguments were brought forward once more focusing on the possible importance of certain biological factors, such as specific genes.

Approaches

Environment

Biosocial criminology has sometimes been criticized for ignoring environmental influences. Biosocial researchers argues that this is incorrect but that on the other hand many sociologically influenced criminological approaches completely ignores the potential role of genetic which means that the results is likely confounded by genetic factors. For example, if a study finds an association between parental abusive and antisocial behavior when the children become adults this is often assumed to be evidence for a causation between parental abuse and antisocial behavior. However, another possibility is that shared genes may cause both behaviors. Furthermore, the environment is often influenced by genes which is an example of gene–environment correlation. One example being that genes may influence which environment a person prefers and selects to be in. Thus, a strong association between exposure to delinquent peers and a person's own delinquent behavior has been taken as evidence for causal process where a person learns to become a criminal. However, research on the role of genetic factors have found that such exposure is largely caused by genetic factors.

Sociological approaches to criminality, while recognizing the importance of environmental factors through an individual's life, have mostly studied factors influential during adolescence or adulthood. Biological approaches have emphasized the importance of early development when the brain is rapidly growing and developing. Birth complications can cause brain damage and are associated with later criminality. Also the environment during first few years after birth are critical for the growing brain. This early environment has been lined with child temperaments that are associated with later problematic behaviors.

Genetics

One approach to studying the role of genetics for crime is to calculate the heritability coefficient. It describes the proportion of the variance for some characteristic that differs between individuals that is due to genetic factors. The non-heritability proportion can be further divided into the "shared environment" which is the non-genetic factors which make siblings similar while the "non-shared environment" is the non-genetic factors which makes siblings different from another. Thousands of studies on antisocial behaviors studying hundreds of thousands of persons have typically found that the "shared environment" account for 10% of less of the variance while "non-shared environment" account for around 40% of the variance. A more recent approach with a large potential is to directly study DNA and examine if specific genetic markers are associated with criminal behavior. A number of such associations have already been found, especially between neurotransmitters genes and criminal behaviors. Each individual association when studied in isolation has a relatively small effect. However, also single genes can have a much larger effect in specific environments which is an example of gene–environment interaction.

Neurophysiology

Another approach is to examine the relationship between neurophysiology and criminality. One example is that measured levels of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamin have been associated with criminal behavior. Another is that neuroimaging studies give strong evidence for that both brain structure and function are involved in criminal behaviors. The limbic system creates emotions such as anger and jealousy that ultimately may cause criminal behavior. The prefrontal cortex is involved in delaying gratification and impulse control and moderates the impulses from the limbic system. If this balance is shifted in favor of the limbic system this may contribute to criminal behavior. Terrie Moffitt's developmental theory of crime argues that "life-course-persistent offenders" make up only 6% of the population but commits more than 50% of all crimes and that this is due to a combination neurophysiological deficits and an adverse environment that creates a criminal path that is very difficult to break once started.

Evolutonary psychology

Two traditions in biosocial criminology focus on analyzing evolutionary forces related to criminal behavior. They link criminal behavior with specific biological processes such as hormone secretions or brain wave patterns.

Linda Mealey, a representative of the "evolutionary forces" school, suggested that some human males - psychopaths - display alternative reproductive strategies; which can be described as engaging in various lawless acts throughout their life, particularly in their youth, that would usually, if known, lessen their chances of finding a reproductive partner. However, by the use of deception (creating false images of themselves towards their mates and society), and success in assaulting rivals and accumulating property and status, they manage to reproduce successfully.

Lee Ellis, a representative of the "neurologically specific theories" school, proposed the neocortex hemispheric functioning theory, which argues that people with an underdeveloped left hemisphere of the brain (linked with more linguistic skills and social behaviors) are more likely to engage in crime. As the hemispheres control opposite sides of the body, the theory also predicts that left handed individuals are more likely to engage in criminal behavior than right handed ones.

The evolutionary neuroandrogenic theory (ENA theory) takes from both the evolutionary and neurological theories, focusing on the hormone testosterone. It asserts that males have evolved so that testosterone will make them more likely to display competing behavior and victimize others than females. More competitive males will be seen by females as more able to provide for the family, and thus more likely to be chosen as mates and so more able to pass their genes to the next generation. Testosterone is a key component of the process, as it tends to shift brain functions from the left to the right hemisphere.

References

^ Kevin M. Beaver and Anthony Walsh. Biosocial Criminology. Chapter 1 in The Ashgate Research Companion to Biosocial Theories of Crime. 2011. Ashgate.

Misplaced Pages