Biological Explanations of Offending Behaviour

• what was Lombroso's theory?

  • view was that there were physical features which offenders had, which indicated they were less developed in an evolutionary sense than non-offenders.
  • Lombroso combined his ideas with Darwin’s theory of evolution to imply that offenders were more primitive and therefore not completely responsible for their criminal actions.
  • Lombroso referred to the physical features identified in criminals as “atavistic”, where the term atavism refers to a primitive ancestor.
• method of lombroso (1876)

  • Lombroso examined the features and measurements of nearly 4,000 criminals, as well as the skulls of 400 dead criminals.
• results of lombroso (1876)

  • Some common findings from Lombroso’s investigation included:
  • sloping brow (which according to Lombroso, indicated low intelligence levels)
  • pronounced jaw
  • high cheekbones
  • large ears
  • extra nipples, toes and fingers
• evaluation of atavistic form (1)

  • he did not use a control group in his research; therefore, although he found physical trends amongst his substantial group of offenders, he was not comparing them to a group of ‘normal’ controls. Therefore, it may be more likely that these physical features are coincidental and can be found amongst any people group of that size. Indeed, Goring (1913) attempted to replicate Lombroso’s findings by comparing a large group of offenders with a control group of non-criminals and found no significant differences between the two groups.
• evaluation of atavistic form (2)

  • An alternative way of looking at Lombroso’s findings is to consider the interaction of genetics and the environment, in that people with features described as atavistic, may be more likely to lean towards criminal behaviour due to the way that they are treated. Kaplan’s (1980) “self-derogation” theory argues that if individuals experience persistently poor interactions with others (in this case due to the way they look), they will develop lower self-esteem and increased frustration with others, making them more likely to commit criminal behaviour.
• what do twin studies suggest about offending behaviour?

  • Christiansen (1977) examined over 3500 twins in Denmark
  • concordance rates are low, even for monnozygotic twins, which indicates that the environment still plays a large part in criminal behaviour.
  • difference between male and female twin pairs raises an interesting question about the role of gender in criminal behaviour.

  
• what do family studies suggest about offending behaviour?

  • Brunner et al (1993) conducted an analysis of a large family in the Netherlands, a number of which had been responsible for criminal behaviour
  • The researchers found that the males had a genetic condition
  • The condition results in lower intelligence levels and causes a deficiency in monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), an enzyme responsible for the metabolism of neurotransmitters such as serotonin (which has links to aggression).
  • The conclusion here is that individuals can inherit genetic conditions which make them prone to offending behaviour.
• what do adoption studies suggest about offending behaviour?

  • Crowe (1972) compared a group of adopted children whose biological mother had a criminal record, to a control group
  • It was found that if a biological mother had a criminal record, 50% of the adopted children also had one by the time they were 18.
  • In the control group, only 5% of the adopted children had a criminal record by the time they were 18. This suggests that regardless of the changed environment, children seemed biologically predisposed to criminality.
• evaluation of genetic explanations (1)

  • Twin studies and family studies are seen as problematic since they don’t rule out the impact of the environment. The results could be due to social learning since the twin sets and families concerned are all occupying the same environment. One way around this is to use adoption studies, which enable psychologists to rule out the effects of the environment, since the adoptees are being raised in a different environment from the biological parent concerned. This helps us to see if there is any genetic link, in spite of the shared environment.
• evaluation of genetic explanations (2)

  • Brunner et al.’s (1993) research has been criticised for using a case study method. Case studies are uniquely specific to the small number of individuals involved and therefore lack representativeness. This matters because it is difficult to apply the results beyond the family in question, since the genetic make-up is unique to them.
• evaluation of genetic explanations (3)

  • provide strong support for the nature side. e.g, research into families and twins, suggests that there is some genetic basis for behaviour. However, supporters of the nurture argument argue that to ignore the influence of external factors such as parenting, culture and social learning on offending behaviour. This is important to consider as while the evidence to support a biological basis for offending behaviour is strong, there are other elements to consider which reduce the effectiveness of the biological findings.
• what are the two key neurotransmitters that has a role in offending behaviour?

  • serotonin - this neurotransmitter has been inked to mood and impulsiveness.
  • dopamine - has been identified as it is linked to the dopaminergic pathway, which results in pleasure, which is a rewarding feeling and a desire to repeat certain behaviours. This is why dopamine has been linked to addiction and substance abuse, and therefore through this it has an indirect link to criminal behaviour.
• what has research found out about serotonin?

  • Moir and Jessel (1995) cite a number of human and animal studies which suggest a link between low levels of serotonin and aggression, which is linked to criminal behaviour.
  • Scerbo and Raine (1993) conducted a meta-analysis on 29 pieces of research into anti-social adults and children, finding in all cases, low levels of serotonin.
• what has research found out about dopamine?

  • Buitelaar (2003) found that juvenile delinquents given dopamine antagonists which reduce levels of dopamine, showed a decrease in aggressive behaviour.
  • Couppis (2008) argues that some individuals who engage in certain criminal behaviours may experience an increase in dopamine and as a result seek out such experiences again due to the reward feeling.
• which two parts of the brain have been linked to offending behaviour?

  • amygdala - part of the limbic system, which is regarded as an older region of the brain in an evolutionary sense; therefore, many of the structures within the limbic system are seen to have some sort of survival benefit. The amygdala in particular has been identified as a structure with links to emotion regulation and aggression.
  • frontal lobes - the frontal lobes, part of the neocortex (neo being “new” in an evolutionary sense), have been linked to higher function such as social behaviours and planning.
• what has research found out about the amygdala?

  • Potegal et al. (1996) found that stimulating the amygdala of hamsters led to an increase in aggressive behaviour.
  • Mitchell and Blair (1999) have also looked at the role of the amygdala in psychopaths, suggesting that dysfunction in the structure may be the cause of psychopathy since it is involved in the processing of emotion, and in particular developing empathy for others.
• what has research found out about the frontal lobes?

  • Brower and Price (2001) found a link between frontal lobe dysfunction and violent crime.
  • Kandel and Freed (1989) looked at frontal lobe damage and anti-social behaviour, finding that there was a tendency for such individuals to exhibit emotional instability, a failure to consider the consequences of their actions or to adapt their behaviour in response to external cues. These traits would seemingly be a result of impaired functioning in the frontal lobes, a region responsible for planning behaviour.
• method of raine et al (1997)

  • The participants were 41 murderers (2 female) who had been charged with murder or manslaughter and had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. The researchers used a (positron emission tomography) PET scanning method to highlight areas of brain activity and these results were compared to an age and gender matched control group.
• results of raine et al (1997)

  • They found reduced activity for the offender group in areas such as the prefrontal cortex and corpus callosum (the nerve fibres responsible for swift communication between the hemispheres). Additionally, there were abnormalities in the activity of the limbic system, including the amygdala and thalamus.
• evaluation of neural explanations (1)

  • The neurochemical explanations of offending behaviour have been criticised for being overly simplistic. The links between abnormal levels of a certain neurotransmitter and offending behaviour, often centre around violent and aggressive behaviour, which does not explain all types of crime. This is important because it lacks the complexity necessary to understand why individuals commit crimes such as burglary or drug dealing, which aren’t necessarily violent or aggressive in nature.
• evaluation of neural explanations (2)

  • The nature of some of the research into neurochemistry and neurophysiology is often correlational. For example, the low levels of serotonin found in offenders could be a cause of offending behaviour, but they could also be the effect of it. Similarly, the structural brain abnormalities found in Raine et al. (1997), could be a cause of offending behaviour or the result of some environmental factor. This matters because it highlights the complexity of the relationship between biology and behaviour and suggests that further investigation is required.
• evaluation of neural explanation (3)

  • can be considered reductionist. For example, where researchers look at the way a neurotransmitter or brain region might contribute to offending behaviour, they are overlooking other important factors, such as how the environment might have an impact on these areas as well. That being said, such researchers will argue that to be reductionist allows a more straightforward investigation to be conducted as it would be nearly impossible to disentangle all of the possible explanations and their interactions and investigate them scientifically.
• evaluation of biological explanations for offending behaviour (1)

  • A key debate in the discussion of offending behaviour is whether it is a result of nature or nature. The evidence above presents the case for nature, but arguments from the nurture perspective should not be ignored and the interaction between the two should not be overlooked. For example, Lombroso’s theory and research had clear implications for the criminal justice system. If offenders are, as Lombroso argues, not responsible for their crimes then how should they be punished?
• evaluation of biological explanation for offending behaviour (2)

  • to view offending behaviour as biologically predetermined is seen as deterministic. If that is the case, as Lombroso argued, can they be held responsible for their crimes, since they are unable to control their biology. Charles Whitman shot 45 people. A post-mortem found a tumour the size of a walnut pressing on his amygdala. The conclusion was drawn that perhaps this was the cause of his sudden extreme violence, since the amygdala has been linked to aggression and emotion regulation. B