Biological explanations

• Lombroso challenged older historical approaches of criminality, which often suggested criminals were possessed by demons. He proposed the idea of the atavistic form in 1876.
• The atavistic form states criminals are at a more primitive stage of human evolution than non-criminals, and so are 'throwbacks'. This means criminality is innate and so criminals are born, not made.
• Characteristics of the atavistic form:

  • Narrow sloping brow,
  • Strong prominent jaw,
  • High cheekbones,
  • Facial asymmetry,
  • Dark skin,
  • Existence of extra toes, nipples or fingers,
  • Use of slang, tattoos and unemployment.
• Lombroso based his theory upon studying the cranial features of 383 dead and 3839 alive Italian criminals, whereby approximately 40% of crime could be explained using the offender profiles based upon certain atavistic characteristics.
• Strengths of the atavistic form:

  • Practical impact - Lombroso shifted the emphasis in crime research away from moralistic to scientific. Also, in describing how particular types of people are likely to commit particular types of crime, the theory in many ways was the beginning of offender profiling. This suggests that Lombroso made a major contribution to the science of criminology.
• Limitations of the atavistic form:

  • Racism - DeLisi explained how the features mentioned by Lombroso have scientific racism within them. For example, just because an individual had certain atavistic characteristics, does not mean that they are or are destined to become criminal. Following this logic, it appears that certain races are more likely to become criminal than others, such as African Americans, amongst whom curly hair is common. Therefore, this may have landed itself to giving ‘scientific justification’ for discriminatory practices and eugenics.
• Limitations of the atavistic form:

  • Unscientific - The dated methodology adopted by Lombroso did not use statistical analysis or a control group from another culture. Since the entire sample was Italian, we do not know whether the findings of atavistic characteristics are significant and if so, to what confidence level. Comparisons with a control group are needed to establish statistical significance, particularly through the additional use of random allocation (which controls for the confounding effects of individual participant variables).
• Limitations of the atavistic form:

  • Evidence contradicting the link between the atavistic form and crime - Goring compared 3000 offenders and 3000 non-offenders and found no evidence that offenders are a distinct group with unusual facial and cranial characteristics. He did suggest though that many people who commit crime have lower-than-average intelligence. This challenges the idea that offenders can be physically distinguished from the rest of the population, therefore they are unlikely to be a sub-species.
• Genetic explanations of criminality suggest there are inherited genes (genotypes) that make an individual more likely to engage in criminal behaviour (phenotype). An example of this is aggressive behaviour.
• Twin studies - Christiansen studied 3500 pairs of twins in Denmark and found a concordance rate of offending behaviour to be 35% for MZ males and 12% for DZ males.
• Adoption studies - Crowe found that adopted children who had a biological mother with a criminal record had a 50% risk of having a criminal record by the age of 18, whereas adopted children with a biological mother who did not have a criminal record only had a 5% risk.
• Specific candidate genes, such as the short variant MAOA gene, has been linked to high levels of criminal behaviour, including aggression. MAOA metabolises a range of neurotransmitters including serotonin, dopamine and noradrenaline. This genetic variation potentially leads to poorer impulse control.
• Candidate genes - Tiihonen conducted a genetic analysis of 800 Finnish convicts and suggested two genes causing criminality:

  • MAOA gene - controls dopamine and serotonin in the brain and has been linked to aggressive behaviour.
  • CDH13 gene - linked to substance abuse and ADHD.

  He found 5-10% of all severe violent crime in Finland is

  attributable to the MAOA and CDH13 genotypes.
• Rhee (2002) conducted a meta analysis, including 51 twin and adoption studies with over 110 participants. The researcher assessed the relative influence of genetic and environmental factors on antisocial behaviour. The result of the data analysis found genetics accounted for 41% of the variance in anti-social behaviour and environmental effects 59%, suggesting that hereditary genetic factors are a significant driver of anti-social crime.
• Neural explanations are a range of biological processes in the brain leading to criminal behaviour, such as biochemistry and large neural structures.
• Neurotransmitters:

  • Noradrenaline - High levels result in aggression, likely due to its role in the fight or flight response. Naturally higher levels can lead to a more aggressive person.
  • Serotonin - Low levels results in criminals being unable to resist emotional urges.
  • Dopamine - Causes the pleasure linked to drug addiction. The need to acquire more of the drug to satisfy a biological craving can lead to criminality such as theft.
• Mirror neurones are active when we are performing or

  watching someone else perform. Intentions and emotions of other people lead to experiences of empathy. These tend to be switched on by default.

  Keysers found only when criminals were asked to empathise did they show an empathy reaction, suggesting APD individuals do experience empathy, but may have a neural ‘switch’ that turns on and off. In a normally- functioning brain the empathy switch is permanently on.
• Neurological structures include the biological features in the brain that regulate behaviour:

  • Reduced limbic system - Emotions like guilt, empathy and compassion are important in inhibiting violent actions. Psychopaths are thought to have a problem with this system, resulting in not experiencing these emotions.
  • Frontal cortex - Responsible for the executive function, overriding strong, aggressive emotional responses from other areas of the brain. This is thought to be underdeveloped in the brains of violent criminals.
• Raine (2000) suggested there was reduced activity and an 11% reduction in the volume of grey matter in the prefrontal cortex in people with antisocial personality disorder.
• Strengths of biological explanations:

  • Supporting evidence - Brunner (1993) conducted a case study on an extended family in the Netherlands, whose males had a history of impulsive aggression, arson and attempted rape. 5 males had defective MAOA genes, producing no MAOA, suggesting extreme levels of criminality can have a genetic origin, leading to a neurotypical abnormality.
• Strengths of the biological explanations:

  • Supporting studies - Kiehl conducted fMRI scans on 8 criminal psychopaths, and 8 non-criminal while completing emotional processing tasks. It was found the criminal psychopaths had reduced activity in the limbic system, suggesting psychopathic offenders often have neurological differences, leading them to experience less emotion.
• Strength of biological explanations:

  • Practical applications - The development of biological explanations have important implications for the justice system. Judges who understand that criminal behaviour may be due to biological determinism may consider sentences focusing on treatment rather than punishment.
• Strengths of the biological approach:

  • Support for the diathesis stress model - Mednick (1984) studied 13,000 Danish adoptees having at least one court conviction. He found conviction rates 13.5% (when biological or adoptive parents had no convictions), 20% (when one biological parent), 24.5% (when both adoptive and biological parents). This data suggests that both genetic inheritance and environment influence criminality, supporting the diathesis-stress model of crime.
• Limitations of the biological approach:

  • Methodological issue - Twin studies assume that the only difference between twins is the amount of genetic information they share. This is an incorrect as, for example, the assumption that MZ twins are likely to share the same environment as opposed to normal siblings may explain why MZ concordance rates are higher than for normal siblings, despite both sharing 50% of their genes. This suggests that causal conclusions about the genetic basis of criminality have incorrectly been reached