Biological explanations for OB (genetic and nueral)

• Outline the genetic explanation for offending behaviour - inherited genes

  The genetic explanation proposes that offenders have inherited genes that predispose them to commit a crime e.g. a low-activity version of the MAOA gene. The MAOA gene is responsible for making enzymes that breaks down neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonin. A low-activity version therefore produces less enzymes so results in high levels of dopamine and serotonin.
• Outline the genetic explanation for offending behaviour - high levels of serotonin

  High levels of serotonin causes their receptors to become desensitized to its inhibitory effects, making neurons in the nervous system highly active. This causes feelings of agitation and restless, in turn, leading to impulsive crimes of aggression. Meanwhile, high levels of dopamine can lead to reward-seeking behaviour seen in crimes such as theft.
• A strength of genetic explanation is that it has received supporting evidence.

  Twin studies have found higher concordance rates for offending behaviour in MZ twins (who share 100% of their genes) than DZ twins (who share 50% of their genes). This is a strength because the higher likelihood of MZ twins both being offenders can be explained by their more similar genetics. Therefore adds credibility.
• limitation of the genetic explanation is that supporting evidence from twin studies suffers from confounding variables.

  This is because MZ twins are likely to share more similar environmental experiences than DZ twins due to always being of the same sex and looking more alike. As a result, they are likely to have the same friendship groups where both may be exposed to pro-crime attitudes and behaviour. This is a limitation because it suggests that offending behaviour can result from environmental experiences rather than genetics. Therefore questions credibility.
• strength of the genetic explanation adoption studies have further supported the role of genes in offending behaviour

  adopted children who had a biological parent with a criminal record were found to have a higher risk of having a criminal record than adopted children whose biological parent did not have a criminal record, despite both being raised by non-criminal families. strength because the children being at a higher risk of engaging in criminal behaviour if their biological parent was also a criminal can be explained by them inheriting criminal genes.
• strength of the genetic explanation is that adoption studies have further supported the role of genes in offending behaviour. - environment driving behaviour.

  If environment was driving their behaviour, and they were raised by non-criminals, they should not be at an increased risk of engaging in crimes. Therefore adds credibility.
• limitation of the genetic explanation is that it is too biologically deterministic

  it proposes the criminal behaviour is determined by biological factors (e.g. genes) that are outside of the individual’s control. This is a limitation because it leads to negative implications on the criminal justice system whereby we expect criminals to take responsibility for their crimes so they can be appropriately punished. If a person’s criminal behaviour is proposed to be caused by genes outside of their control, it would raise ethical questions as to whether they should be punished to the same extent.
• Outline the neural explanation for offending behaviour. - abnormalities

  The neural explanation proposes that offending behaviour is caused by abnormalities in brain structure and/or function. Brain scanning research has found that offenders have reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex, a brain area involved in decision making. Reduced activity in this area could therefore led to poor decision making and impulsive behaviour which is often seen in impulsive violent crimes.
• Outline the neural explanation for offending behaviour. - amygdala

  Brain scanning research has also found that offenders have reduced activity in their amygdala, a brain area that processes emotions such as fear. Reduced activity in this area could result in individuals being less likely to recognize the fear they cause in their victim as well as the fear they should feel about potentially being imprisoned for any crime they commit. This means they are more likely to engage in offending behaviour in comparison to neurotypical people who are typically deterred by feelings of fear
• strength of the neural explanation for offending behaviour is that it has received supporting evidence.

  brain scanning studies have found that men with lower amygdala volumes are more likely to be violent than men with average-sized amygdalas. In addition, brain scans on people with antisocial personality disorder have found that many of the individuals had reduced tissue and activity in their prefrontal cortex compared to controls. This is a strength as it supports the proposal that abnormalities in brain structure/function can lead to offending behaviour. Therefore adds credibility.
• strength of the neural explanation is that it has received further supporting evidence

  TMS is a method used to send electrical impulses to the brain in order to increase neuron activity. Research using this technique has found that increasing activity in the prefrontal cortex reduces criminal intentions and increases perceptions of aggressive behaviour as being morally wrong. This is a strength as it supports the proposal that lower activity in the prefrontal cortex can contribute to offending behaviour. Therefore adds credibility.
• limitation - individual differences

  successful, criminal psychopaths typically do not have an underactive pre-frontal cortex. more likely to have increased activity in this area, hence why they commit more organised and pre-planned crimes.while psychopaths may be cold and calculating ( reduced amygdala activity), non-psychopaths may have an overactive amygdala, explaining why commit emotionally driven, impulsive crimes. limitation as it suggests that the neural explanation of reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex and/or amygdala cannot explain all offending behaviour. ? credibility.
•  limitation of the neural explanation too biologically deterministic.

  it proposes the criminal behaviour is determined by biological factors (brain abnormalities) that are outside of the individual’s control. limitation because it leads to negative implications on the criminal justice system whereby we expect criminals to take responsibility for their crimes so they can be appropriately punished. If a person’s criminal behaviour is proposed to be caused by brain abnormalities outside of their control, it would raise ethical questions whether they should be punished to the same extent.