Two biological explantions of criminality

Sandra James

“Outline and evaluate two or more

Biological explanations of criminality”

Historically crime causation was deemed as a form of illness, suggesting individuals were not able to control their behaviour, considered mad. The early study of Phrenology was proposed by Gall who decided the brain was responsible for crime his theory was based on different parts of the brain determined individual differences. Some of these differences being lumps and bumps on our head growing differently. These theories were developed and led to those responsible for criminal behaviour. Sheldon proposed Somatotyping, 3 different body shapes/build, one being indicative to aggressive criminal behaviour, ‘mesomorphs’. All these arguments have long since been discredited. The argument always being nature v nurture, asking if criminals are born or made?

When looking to evaluate biological theories of criminality one needs to take into consideration that there are 4 factors which are explanations, Constitutional, Genetic, Biochemical and Neurological. During my evaluation in this essay I will be examining two different areas of biological theories of crime causation and will demonstrate that there are various contributing factors to criminal behaviour. It will offer both supporting views and arguments against the proposed theories.

The two biological theories chosen to be explained are twin studies from the Genetic factor and nutrition from the Biochemical factor.

Genetic factors cover 3 areas, twin studies, adoption and the criminal gene. Twin studies have been investigated to establish whether the influence of heredity (nature) or environment (nurture) cause criminality.

This was thought to be an accurate experiment for a criminal gene as it would not be possible to manipulate the subjects as genetics are fixed and a part of an individuals’ makeup, therefore influences were not possible unlike in most experiments. Theorists thought that if you could hold one of these variables constant, (the twin with the criminal gene) then similarities in criminality may suggest crime was related to the constant, (twin 1 being related to twin 2 in gene) whereas differences would suggest a connection with the variables. (K Williams 2004)

A study by Christiansen of 6,000 pairs of twins born to criminal parents, between 1968 and 1974 recognised that there were two types of twins, identical, which were monozygotic (MZ) their genes were 100% identical and non identical, dyzygotic (DZ) these twins shared 50% of their genes. It was found that the concordance rate for similar criminal behaviour was 35.8% for male identical twins, compared to 21.4% of females. When non identical twins were analysed this changed to 12.3% of men and 4.3% of women.

This experiment claimed that the figures show a significant role is played by inherited factors but also recognised that no conclusion could be reached for the complete dominance of either genetics or environment (K Williams 2004), however is would be safe to say that there is an upward trend compared to non identical twins by nearly 3 times. To substantiate this experiment we would need to draw information from siblings with no MZ gene and then compare.

A later twin study by Rowe and Rodgers in 1989 gave rather different results, which were used to uphold ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

A later twin study by Rowe and Rodgers in 1989 gave rather different results, which were used to uphold both social and genetic reasons for criminality. (Rowe 1990) They collected information from self-report questionnaires on personal delinquent peers from 308 sets of twins in schools in Ohio and included 265 sets of same sex-twins and 43 opposite sex twins, as well as a small non twin sibling control group. They concluded that genetic influences partly determine the similarity of behaviour of same-sex and monozygotic twins. They recognised that interaction between siblings and twin interaction also play a large part in shaping behavioural patterns. Rowe claimed the differences with other studies, is that they had fully recognised the importance of interaction between siblings making this study more accurate.

With both studies there is no evidence of how many crimes were committed or types of crime, also this could have been a one off offence. The information may not be as true picture as born criminals would not be able to help their life of crime and keep it to one offence, lots of crimes are down to opportunists therefore they may be petty.

When evaluating the effectiveness of the experiments there are so many other influences and variables that could play a crucial part that appear not to of been taken into consideration such as sample bias men are more likely to commit crime no matter what their gene, environment, this maybe that they live with a criminal parent, social upbringing plays a big part as what may start as pinching a pint of milk for mum at 10yrs old soon turns into bigger things, demographics which may mean that because you live in a certain area it may be survival of the fittest or being part of peer group, lack of education and employment can lead to boredom and lack of skills to gain a job therefore needing to earn money by way of crime, social background of each twin should they have been separated, or if twins are not separated is crime due to genetic makeup or proximity of environment the time in which they spent with their biological parents.

We need to realise that it does not take two twins to commit a crime as with any criminals they interact and recruit others, a twin also maybe more likely to manipulate others because of the fact of being a twin. A relationship with any criminal is likely to shape thoughts and actions leading to crime. This I believe is why one sibling is more likely to follow the other into a life of crime, not necessarily a following of a particular gene more likely to be influenced by environment and peer groups and pressure.

A more conclusive way of conducting this experiment would be if the MZ twins were separated at birth and 1 brought up in a totally different social background, this would offer additional control to the experiment therefore getting closer to the facts as to the genetic predisposition of crime.

When considering twin studies to establish a relationship with crime and as to whether it is an inherited gene, identical twins should show a 100% trend concordant with their behaviour (Clark 2007 class notes) therefore it is not conclusive to say that criminality is just because of a particular gene, however acknowledgement needs to be given to the contribution this gene gives to criminality with a strong influence of environment.

When looking at other contributing factors to crime it may be that even though the person may have what is considered to be a criminal gene the underlying key could be the Biochemical factor Nutrition. The Biochemical theory is likely to lead to crime, but especially violence, a function of diet, vitamin intake, and hormonal imbalance or food allergies this then leads to irrational thoughts and violence. There is voluminous research and evidence depicting this as a major contributing factor as far back as 1978.

In 2002 Gesch produced a significant piece of research showing a direct link between nutrition and criminal behaviour. In a British prison, 231 men between the ages of 18 and 21 were divided into two study groups. One was given nutritional supplements along with their meals, the other groups, placebos. Neither the prisoners, guards, or researchers at the prison knew who had the real supplements and who had the fakes, previously this had been seen as a flaw in earlier experiments.

The results were staggering, prisoners given supplements for 4 consecutive months committed an average of 26% less violations, the number of violations also decreased by 37%, those given placebos showed no change. This study differed from others in its thoroughness and scientific rigour as it ruled out ethnic, social, psychological or other variables which could affect the outcome therefore this was convincing scientific proof that poor nutrition plays a significant role in triggering aggressive behaviour.

Gesch’s findings further substantiate that of Dr Stephen Schoenthaler, a professor of Criminal Justice who long argued that better food equated better behaviour with increased IQ and performance.

Schoenthaler also experimented with supplementing diets of 71 residents of a juvenile treatment facility this saw an overall decrease in violence by 66%. In another study of 2 Youth Authority prison camps, 402 inmates were divided into groups and given vitamin supplements or placebos for 15 weeks. Those given 100% the required daily allowance of vitamins and minerals showed 38% decline, almost an identical finding of Gesch. In contrast the group given placebos showed a small increase in violations.

In 1990 Gesch headed a pilot project called the South Cumbria Alternative Sentencing Options (SCASO) in the UK when offenders were subjected to a number of tests for vitamin and mineral deficiencies, the presence of toxic metals, poor blood sugar control, and individual dietary assessment. He found that habitual offenders had several biochemical problems in common, glucose intolerance and zinc deficiency. Every single person in the study exhibited abnormal glucose tolerance, triggered by sugary foods and stimulants. The inability to metabolise blood glucose properly is common among habitual offenders. To support this when volunteers were placed on a nutritional rehabilitation programme their behaviour improved, on saying this nutritional needs do vary and so do reactions, for this reason it is hard to assess to what level nutrition effects behaviour. (K Williams 2004)

Understandably diet and or genetics are seen just as a notion to the contributing factors of crime causation as it would allow offenders to escape responsibility of their actions, after all we are all considered to function by our own freewill and this explanation of crime causation to some may mean a free for all, conclusions may be drawn that there are mitigating circumstances that would cover all eventualities!

Even though the data is conclusive on the value of nutrition, in UK prisons, Doctors, scientists, psychologists, prison authorities and politicians do not acknowledge it, they make excuses about the lack of evidence and also the cost involved in implementing nutritional programmes. The change in nutrition has been proven to cut re-offending rates so changing diet would be more cost effective than ASBOs, which are not seeing changes in behaviour. Diet needs to be seen as something we can influence and should not be underestimated even at this stage.

It is true to say that we have come a long way from the lumps and bumps on our head and our body shape being an indicator of our criminality, but we are still a long way from working out what really causes someone to turn to crime. It seems that neither Biochemical nor Genetic factors can be studied alone, and noted that attention needs to be given to the interaction of behavioural changes, environment and the psychological characteristics of the individual. (K. Williams 2004) there are so many variables, each criminal having their own individual package/makeup for crime causation. It may be that in time there will be another factor that depicts the main reasons and gives us the explanation we are looking for.

The worrying thing has to be when we do feel we have found the cause, what are we going to be able to do, incarcerate possible offenders, change the chemical balance of high risk individuals and anticipate offences, worrying thoughts. (K. Williams 2004)