Biological theories

History And Overview

Biological theories of crimes state that whether or not people commit crimes
depends on their biological nature. The biological characteristics that biological
theories of crime claim are associated with criminality could include factors such
as genetics, neurology, or physical constitution.

Although many modern biological theories of crime consider the effect of

contextual and environmental conditions (what criminologists call biosocial
theories), biological theories of crime distinguish themselves from sociological
theories in their focus on internal factors.

Biological theories of crime developed in parallel to their sociological

counterparts.

Forensic biolog y first became a science in itself in Italy in the 19th century, with
Cesare Lombroso as its founding father. Lombroso developed the concept of the
“born criminal” under the influence of both phrenology (a now-defunct study of
the features of the skull as indicative of mental capacity and character traits) and
Darwin’s theory of evolution.

I consent to receiving emails and personalized ads.

Although criminologists often paint biological theories of crime in opposition to
sociological ones, Lombroso was influenced by the work of French crime
statisticians such as André-Michel Guerry and Adolphe Quetelet.

These crime statisticians recorded the number and distribution of crimes by

collecting and analyzing statistical data, producing connections between age,
gender, social origin, and crime.
These statistics pointed to the hypothesis that crime was the result of
environmental and social factors as well as biological ones. His students would
lean more heavily into this hypothesis, producing integrated biosocial theories of
crime.

Lombroso’s criminal theory developed a large following in the German-speaking

world. One remnant of this following was the so-called degeneration thesis,
promoted by the criminologist Emil Kraeplin. According to the degeneration
thesis, criminals pathologically and hereditary deviated from a regular genetic
type. However, this genetic type could only be identified by psychological, rather
than physical, characteristics.

Both the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich would use the atavistic and
degeneration theses as justification for so-called “racial hygiene” projects. Thus,
the Third Reich branded many ethnic minorities as genetically criminal and
inferior; people to whom every right could and must be denied.

Representatives such as Franz Exner and Edmund Mezger drew scientific

justifications from the twin studies of Johannes Lange, Friedrich Stumpfl’s
genealogical research, and other studies that argued that criminality could only
be explained by human genetic predisposition.

The Nation Socialists (that is, the Nazi Party), also drew influence from purely
physiological theories of crime, such as Ernst Kretchmer’s theory of consitituion.
The physiological abnormalities leading to crime, according to Kretschmer, could
be in the brain or skull as well as in the structure of the body.

Because of their fatal consequences in the Nazi regime, biological theories of

crime largely lost their scientific significance after the Second World War.

Most criminal biologists have abandoned the idea that delinquency can be
explained only by biological deviations in the offender, preferring approaches
that combine biology and sociology. Terrie Moffit’s Two-Path theory is such an
example.

Degeneration Theory (1857)

Degeneracy Theory, an offshoot of 19th-century research into biological theories
of crime, argues that certain (lower) social classes and races were predisposed to
neurological and mental illnesses by inheritance, making them more likely to
commit crimes.
Those of low social standing, such as prostitutes, criminals, the poor, and those
with mental illnesses, were morally defective and represented a regression in
human evolution.

B.A. Morel (1857) proposed the first theory of progressive degeneracy in his book,
Traits des Dégénérescences Physiques, Intellectuelles et Morales de l’Espèce
Humaine.

Morel believed that the use of specific substances such as hashish, alcohol, and
opium resulted in progressive physical and moral deterioration that would get
passed on from one generation to the next, resulting in a society with both a
worsened intellectual and moral character as well as certain physical
characteristics.

This theory would come to influence Cesare Lombroso’s biological theory of

crime.

Another key aspect of degeneration theory is the idea that moral degeneracy is
heritable. Degeneration theorists widely believed that the moral and physical
pathologies leading to low social status would persist and proliferate from
generation to generation biologically and socially.

Thus degeneration theorists believed that the so-called “miscegenation” between

morally-defective people should be regulated by eugenics and moral hygiene for
the good of society.

Atavistic Theory Of Crime (1876)

Cesare Lombroso (1876) was most famous for developing the avastic theory of
crime in his book, The Criminal Man . In this book, Lombroso argued that there
is a distinct biological class of people prone to criminality.

Lombroso’s (1876) theory of criminology suggests that criminality is inherited

and that someone “born criminal”” could be identified by the way they look.

He suggested that there was a distinct biological class of people that were prone
to criminality. These people exhibited ‘atavistic’ (i.e. primitive) features.
Lombroso suggested that they were ‘throwbacks’ who had biological
characteristics from an earlier stage of human development that manifested as a
tendency to commit crimes.
 Credit: Wellcome Library, London. Wellcome Images images@wellcome.ac.uk http://wellcomeimages.org
Six figures illustrating types of criminals Printed text L’Homme Criminel Lombroso, Cesar Published: 1888

Lombroso claimed that criminal types were distinguishable from the general
population because they looked different.

These people have atavistic, or primitive, features.

Thieves had expressive faces, manual dexterity, and small, wandering eyes;
murderers had cold, glassy stares, bloodshot eyes, and hawk-like noses; sex
offenders carried thick lips and protruding ears; and female criminals were
shorter, more wrinkly, had darker hair and smaller crimes than normal women.

This meant, Lombroso argued, that criminals were at a more primitive stage of
evolution than non-offenders, making them unable to fit into contemporary
society and thus prone to committing crime. This came with the implication that
criminality was heritable.

Sheldon Somotypes Theory (1942)

William Sheldon (1942) proposed a strong correlation between personality and
somatotype (i.e., physique).

From a study of several hundred male physiques, he derived three made body
types:

1. The ectomorph, characterized by a thin, wiry frame.

2. The endomorph, heavy and rounded.

3. The mesomorph, with a solid, muscular frame.

 Each body type was associated with a particular personality:

1. Ectomorph = introvert, quiet, fragile, sensitive

2. Endomorph = relaxed, sociable, tolerant, peaceful

3. Mesomorph = aggressive, assertive, and adventurous.

Sheldon noted that the vast majority of criminals were mesomorphs. One
explanation for this is that a solid muscular person becomes involved in crime at
an early age due to their intimidating appearance.

This biological theory may seem implausible, but people often stereotype others
on characteristics such as their appearance.

Certain individuals (e.g. the police) may make “snapshot” judgments about
people, which may have implications for criminal behavior.

Terrie Moffit’s Two-Path Theory

(1993)
Terrrie Moffit’s Two-Path theory is a biosocial theory of crime. Moffit (1993)
proposes that there are two groups of people who commit crimes: life-course-
persistent offenders, whose anti-social, criminal behavior begins in childhood
and continues to worsen thereafter, and adolescence-limited offenders, whose
antisocial behavior begins in adolescence but ends in young adulthood.

While life-course-persistent offenders are rare but pathological in nature,

adolescent-limited offenders are relatively common, temporary, and near the
normal.

Moffit’s two-path theory has had important implications for criminal policy, as
one of the most widely received modern criminological theories.

Notably, those who follow Moffit’s theory believe that about 5% of the population
could be life-course-persistent offenders. The government of Hamburg,
Germany, in response to this theory, has screened primary-school age children in
an attempt to provide social therapeutic measures that could possibly
compensate for poor parental support.
Modern Biological Theories Of
Crime
Modern biological theories of crime focus specifically on how different regions of
the brain are responsible for thoughts, emotions, and behaviors, and how the
dysfunction of these regions can cause criminality (Raine, 2008; Viding et al.,
2005; Newsome, 2014).

Neurological Theories of Crime

Neural explanations look at the structure and functioning of the central nervous
system.

There are several regions of the brain that criminologists and neurologists have
focused on in modern biological studies of crime.

The cerebral cortex makes up the outer part of the brain, and is divided into left
and right hemispheres. Each hemisphere has four lobes.

Criminologists have focused on the frontal lobe in their biological theories of

crime because the region is involved in abstract thought, planning, goal
formation, sustaining attention and concentration, self-monitoring, and
behavioral inhibition (Moffit, 1990; Ishikawa and Raine, 2003).

Raine et al. (1997) carried out a study of 41 violent murderers and found reduced
activity in the prefrontal cortex and the limbic system of these offenders
compared with control non-criminals.

Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder (psychopathy) display a decrease

in emotional response and lack of empathy with others. These symptoms have
been found in many offenders.

Brain imaging studies have found reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex of
individuals with APD. Additionally, Raine et al. (2000) found a reduced volume
of grey matter in this region in the brain of these individuals.

Neuroscientists also study how chemicals in the brain known

as neurotransmitters can work to influence thought, emotion, and behavior. For
example, some studies have shown that excessive levels of dopamine may be
related to aggressive and criminal behaviors, and antipsychotic drugs that reduce
dopamine may also be used to reduce aggression.

Similarly, scientists have found that increased levels of norepinephrine can result
in aggressive behavior, and reduced levels can lead to antisocial behavior. These
results suggest that both high and low levels of norepinephrine can result in
behavioral problems.

Another neurotransmitter of interest to biological theories of crime is serotonin,

an inhibitory neurotransmitter used throughout the brain, including in the limbic
system and frontal cortex.

Researchers have determined that reduced levels of serotonin are linked to

criminal behavior, and that the neurotransmitter manages impulsivity (Brizer,
1988; Raine, 2008).

Genetic Explanations
Genetic explanations of crime propose that genetic factors could predispose
individuals to commit crimes because genes code for physiological factors such as
the structure and functioning of the nervous system and neurochemistry.

As in early biological theories of crime, criminologists have used family,

adoption, and twin studies in estimating the extent to which certain traits are
heritable (Plomin, 2004). In these studies, if the behavior of an individual is
more similar to those of their biological relatives than their adopted ones, then
this indicates that a trait is more influenced genetically than environments.

In one such study by Mednick, Gabrielli, and Hutchings (1984), criminologists

examined 14,427 adoptees and their biological and adoptive families to determine
genetic and environmental influences on criminal behavior.

The study’s results indicated that 13.5% of adoptees for whom neither adoptive or
biological parents had been convicted of a crime were convicted. 14.7% of those
for whom only their adoptive parents had been convicted became convicts.

These numbers spiked when the biological parents were convicted of a crime.
20% of those whose biological parents had been convicted became convicted, and
25% of those for whom both biological and adoptive parents had become
convicted became convicted (Mednick, Gabrielli, and Hutchings, 1984).
These results suggest that the traits that lead to criminality are somewhat
heritable, but those who are reared in an environment where they are exposed to
criminal behavior are even more likely to engage in it themselves (Newsome,
2014).

More recent criminality adoption studies have supported these findings.

Rhee and Waldman (2002) conducted a review of twin and adoption studies and
found that there are substantial genetic and environmental influences on
antisocial behavior.

Specifically, the researchers found that about 32% of the variation in antisocial
behavior is due to additive genetic effects, 9% due to nonadditive genetic effects,
16% due to environmental influences shared by the twins, and 43% due to unique
environmental influences not shared by the twins.

After Rhee and Waldman, Moffitt (2005) conducted a review that concluded that
about 50% of the population’s variation in antisocial behavior was due to genetic
influence.

Gene-Environment Interactions
Those with dissimilar genes are likely to act differently in the same environment.
Those who have genetic predispositions towards criminality are more likely to
engage in criminal behaviors if they are exposed to environments conducive to
criminality.

In contrast, those that do not have criminal dispositions are unlikely to engage in
criminal behavior, even when they are in a criminogenic environment. Scientists
such as Caspi et al. (2002) have found evidence for how criminological genes
themselves interact with the environment.

Caspi et al.’s study revealed that genetic variants of a gene that produced an
enzyme that breaks down neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine did
not have a direct effect on behavior normally.

However, boys who experienced maltreatment as children as well as having a

gene that codes for low enzyme production were more likely to have antisocial
behavior problems than those who did not have this gene (Kim-Cohen et al.,
2006; Caspi et al., 2002).
Critical Evaluation
Genetic studies are limited because they cannot determine which specific genetic
factors lead to behavioral differences. Many genes can disrupt normal
development, resulting in abnormal behavior. To find out which genes could be
related to antisocial and criminal behavior, scientists have conducted molecular
genetic studies.

Criminologists have been interested in two types of genes: the genes that control
dopamine and those that control serotonin. The varying levels of dopamine in the
brain can result in a wide range of behaviors, and variants in the genes that
control dopamine can lead to serious and violent antisocial behavior (Comings et
al., 2000).

There are also a number of genes that code for the production, detection, and
removal of serotonin in the brain, and research has indicated that low levels of
serotonin is associated with increases in antisocial behavior (Raine, 2008).

The biological approach is socially sensitive as it has consequences for the legal
system and society as a whole. If offending is genetic then people should not be
considered responsible for their crimes, however this then leaves an important
decision to be made as to what is to be done with these dangerous offenders.

Based on this theory, crime prevention measures could include genetic testing of
the public but once individuals carrying genes predisposing to crime what do we
do with these individuals?