Criminological Theory A Brief Introduction 4th Edition Miller - Test Bank

Criminological Theory A Brief Introduction 4th Edition Miller – Test Bank

 

Instant Download – Complete Test Bank With Answers

 

 

Sample Questions Are Posted Below

 

Chapter 3

Biological Theories of Crime

Chapter Overview:

This chapter on biological theories of crime offers significant updates since the text’s last revision. It begins by offering a more concise chronology of the development of this perspective; Biological theorists such as Lombroso are often credited with pioneering the contemporary field of criminology. His and other revolutionary ideas are discussed while highlighting the reasons why these early developments were doomed for failure. Yet, research into the biological underpinnings of criminal behavior has seen a vast resurgence made possible by scientific innovation in the biological sciences. The chapter also highlights how our understanding of biological influences on criminal behavior has changed dramatically since Lombroso’s work. As a result, the early biological theories are contrasted with more contemporary attempts to link biological and genetic processes with crime and delinquency. A thorough discussion of contemporary research is presented along with a review of recent evidence. The complexity of this perspective is captured in the review of relevant research in layperson terminology.

 

Learning Objectives:

 

After reading this chapter, the student should be able to:

(1) Discuss the early origins of biological theories of crime

(2) Explain how Lombroso’s theory linked physical characteristics with criminal offending

(3) Describe the principles of positivism, particularly in comparison with the previously dominant classical perspective

(4) Identify why the first round of biological theories “fell out of favor” among criminologists

(5) Discuss new directions in biological explanations of crime such as genetic theories

(6) Understand the four biosocial factors that influences criminal behavior: biological factors, genetic factors, the brain, and the environment

(7) Describe the potential policies that could address crime given the contemporary perspective of biosocial criminology versus early biological approaches such as that of Lombroso

 

Key Terms:

Atavism

Behavioral genetic theory

Biosocial criminology
Cesare Lombroso

Equal environments assumption (EEA)

Gene

Genetic Predisposition

Heritability Coefficient

Hormones

Neurotransmitters
Phrenology
Positivism
XYY Chromosome

 

Lecture Outline:

 

1. Introduction
2. Biological theories of crime
   1. Biosocial criminology is an approach to study the etiology of criminal behavior that focuses on both environmental and biological factors
3. Focus on identifying and understanding unique qualities of individuals and to show how the presence or absence of some chemical, hormonal or physical structure is related to participation in crime
4. Blame is largely removed from the equation
5. Important for policy based on the medical model where criminality is not a choice but is rather a pathology that needs to be treated
   1. Views that the criminal justice system is responsible for controlling the treatment of crime
6. The Positivist School of Thought
7. Positivism is the idea that it is possible to identify specific causes of behavior using scientific approaches
8. Biological theories of crime are one embodiment of the positivist perspective (e.g., there are others – biological became popular first)
9. Three core assumptions underlie biological theories of crime:
10. All individuals are biologically unique and different from other people
11. Differences in our individual makeup is believed to account for the differences in our behavior
12. Criminal behavior is the result of specific differences in physical constructions and characteristics of individuals that can be observed and identified through observation or with other scientific ways

• Early Biological Research
  1. Physiognomy and Phrenology

1. Physiognomy was made popular by Johan Lavater during the 1770s and this approach sought to identify distinct facial features of people who committed crimes (e.g., these characteristics below were tied with dangerousness)
   1. Men without beards
   2. Women with beards

• Weak chins

1. “Shifty” eyes

1. Phrenology emerged (1790s – early 1800s) and focuses on the shape and contours of the head
2. Different parts of the brain controlled different social activities and thinking processes
3. When particular parts of the brain are more developed they would be larger and create protrusions on the skull

• The idea was that the contours of an individual’s head could be felt to determine their behavior, including criminal

1. Overall, these ‘scientific’ practices were rather short-lived
   1. Cesare Lombroso, best known early biological theorist
      1. a) Popularized in the latter half of the 19^th century with the publication of his book, The Criminal Man
   2. He argued that criminals were essentially less evolved forms of mankind
   3. Criminals tend to be evolutionary “throwbacks”
      1. In other words, criminals are a less evolved form of human ancestry – called atavists
      2. Criminals were likely to display a number of physical characteristics that were common in apes
   4. He argued that criminals needed to be examined on a case-by-case basis
   5. He believed criminals existed in three basic forms:
      1. Born criminals (atavists) were less developed physically, mentally, and socially than “normal” people
      2. Insane criminals commit crime because of a mental deficiency or due to alcohol and/or drugs

• Criminaloids are a general class of people who do not have special characteristics or mental disorders but under certain conditions (emotional event or need) may engage in crime

1. Traits of atavists were referred to as “stigmata” and some of these included:
   1. An overly large head
   2. Facial features in which one side differs from the other

• Protruding lips

1. large jaw and/or cheekbones
2. Very narrow forehead
3. Large number of wrinkles on the face

• Long arms, fingers, or toes
• Pouchlike cheeks

1. Eyes or ears that stand out from the head
2. Large nose

1. Early science found support for identifying some of these traits in criminals but because of the high prevalence of traits in noncriminals, Lombroso revised his view to include social and environmental influences
2. Protégé Enrico Ferri revised Lombroso’s categorization of man
   1. Maintained born and insane categories, but added the occasional criminal and the criminal by passion
   2. He believed it was necessary to look at physical characteristics of people and environments, anthropological issues (age, sex) and social aspects (culture, religion, economic and political structures)
3. Raffaele Garofalo, another influential Italian positivist, focused on developing a universal definition of crime (“natural crime”)
   1. He argued that crime was more of a result of psychological influences and at times was very critical of Lombroso and Ferri
4. These early biological theorists gave rise to the development of the field of ‘criminal anthropology,’ which did not gain much notoriety
5. Each early biological approach was problematic when tested empirically
   1. Charles Goring tested Lombroso’s ideas by comparing university students with imprisoned recidivistic criminals in England
      1. Physical features or “stigmata” could not be associated with criminality
      2. Persons who experienced frequent and long imprisonments were actually physically smaller in height and weight
      3. There was also a greater degree of variation within groups than between groups
   2. Contemporary Biosocial Criminology
      1. Introduction
   3. Early biological theories received much criticism, leading to their removal from criminology for over 100 years.
   4. More recently the biological theories have moved away from the physical characteristics of our bodies and instead tend to focus four factors
      1. Biological factors
      2. Genetic factors
      3. The brain
      4. The environment
      5. Biological factors
         1. a) One of the most comprehensive of these new approaches is hormone-related research
         2. b) Studies have suggested that the level of sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) influence our emotions and our levels of aggression
         3. c) A long line of studies have linked testosterone levels with aggression and violence in boys, men, athletes (particularly male athletes), and woman as well
            1. ‘Roid’ rage
            2. Overall, this type of research faces the limitation of misinterpreting the cause-and-effect relationship (i.e., hormone levels may vary due to being aggressive, violent to begin with)
         4. d) Another recent biological approach examines the role of diet
      6. During adolescence: Liggio (1969) studied the diets of delinquents compared to non-delinquents and found that the delinquents tended to eat more pasta, bread, and potatoes (high in starch which transforms to sugar)
      7. During pregnancy: Other research has shown that pregnant women who eat diets rich in fatty acids are likely to have children who later test higher on IQ tests, have better fine-motor skills, and are less likely to be involved in antisocial behavior

• During infancy: Lui, Raine, Venables, & Mednick (2004) indicated that malnourished 3 yr-olds were significantly more likely to be aggressive, hyperactive, and delinquent
  1. Behavior genetics
     1. a) The notion that an individual’s genetic predisposition is important in the etiology of criminal behavior
        1. Genes play a role in the cause of crime
        2. Criminality is passed along some lines of families, just like other inherited traits such as physical appearance and medical disease
     2. b) Behavioral geneticists utilize biometric modeling to analyze the impact of genetic factors on behavioral outcomes relative to environmental factors
     3. c) Behavioral genetic theory identifies the amount of genetic overlap between two individuals and hypothesizes that two people who share more genes will tend to be more similar to one another as compared to another set of people who share less genetic material
     4. d) Twin studies are an excellent window into the influence of genes and inheritance on behavior
  2. Behavior geneticists calculate a heritability coefficent for twins
     1. A statistical estimate that provides information on how much genetic factors influence variance of a particular trait
        1. 0 = no genetic influence
        2. 1 = full genetic influence
     2. Inheritability of height can be an example
        1. If identical twins are more similar than fraternal twins, the heritability coeffecient will be larger – thus, the genetic influences are believed to influence variance in the trait being studied
     3. Studies of twins became popular in the US, Europe, and Japan starting in the 1930s
        1. Ohio study showed that criminality is highly correlated among twins as well as emotions and actions such as anger and impulsiveness (traits tied to criminal behavior)
        2. A review of all twin studies available showed a ‘concordance rate’ (or similarity across twin sets) of 69% among identical twins compared to 33% among fraternal twins

• Twin studies have their drawbacks – most twins are raised in the same households, thus they are exposed to the same sets of social influences. Identical twins are also more likely to be treated similarly than fraternal twins (particularly of different gender)
  1. The equal environment assumption states that the environmental experiences of identical twins are no more similar than those experienced by fraternal twins
  2. Work around: study adopted twins
     1. Dutch study confirms that genetic factors play a role in criminality: adopted boys who had both biological and adoptive parents who were criminal were more likely to be criminal compared to boys with criminal adoptive parents AND criminal biological parents
     2. However, only 1 in 4 of the boys were found to be criminal, revealing that neither genetic nor environmental factors can make criminal behavior a ‘certainty’
  3. Barnes and Boutwell (2012) estimate a heritability coefficient of .45 for adolescent delinquency, meaning that 45% of the variance in adolescent delinquency was attributable to genetic factors
     1. They estimate that 36% of the variance of adulthood criminal behavior was explained by genetic factors
  4. Researchers continue to estimate a heritability coefficient of criminal behavior around .50 over time. This research is very much ongoing
     1. Molecular genetics
        1. a) Play a role in identifying which genes are responsible for the variance in criminal behavior
        2. b) Important to remember: there is not crime gene. Rather, most human outcomes result from the combination of many genes (e.g., hundreds of genes working together)
        3. c) A discovery that a small percentage of men (1 in every 1,000-2,000) have a genetic anomaly where they carry two Y chromosomes led to some early research on genetic influences of crime behavior
           1. Men with XYY chromosomes tend to be physically larger and taller, have more and stronger masculine traits, and also tend to score lower on intellectual tests
           2. Men with XYY were found in mental institutions; the assumption was that these men were more aggressive and prone to violence

• Research suggests XYY is a risk factor for crime involvement (e.g., men with this trait are more likely, but not always, involved in crime)
  1. However, this trait is so rare among men, that this trait only can explain a nominal amount of crime

1. d) The revolution in molecular genetics has allowed for the human genetic code to be cataloged. We know that the variation of certain genes can lead to a wide range of outcomes (expressed physiologically, behaviorally, or both)
   1. Current science suggests that humans carry 3 billion base pairs of genetic information (or 23,000 possible genes)
2. e) Biosocial researchers began to look for candidate genes to determine if those who carry particular versions of a specific gene are more likely to display criminal behavior relative to those who carry a different version of the gene
   1. Brunner et al (1993) found that male members of a particular family tended to be extremely violent. Biological analysis showed a particular version of the MAOA gene (monoamine oxidase A) which has been explored by other researchers
   2. DRD2, DRD4, and DAT1 – those with ‘risk’ versions of these genes were more likely to display violent behavior while controlling for other possible predictors
      1. Interestingly, those that lived in disadvantaged neighborhoods who expressed the ‘risk’ version of these genes were more likely to display violent behavior. Those who lived in good neighborhoods did not typically express violent behavior.

• Previous research suggests that offenders are more likely than non-offenders to also be victims of crime. Those who express a risk version of the DRD2 (D₂ dopamine receptor gene) may be prone to higher levels of criminal victimization

1. The brain
   1. a) The two explanations above, hormones and genes, affect behavior because they impact the brain in some way
   2. b) An understanding of brain structure and function in imperative
      1. Two major regions of the brain
         1. Cerebrum – top of the brain – controls emotions and conscious behaviors. Most relevant to crime behavior. Includes the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala, which has received a lot of attention in explaining crime
         2. Cerebellum – bottom of the brain that wraps around the brain stem – coordinates learning and controls movement
      2. Neurons – cells responsible for sending messages from the brain to the rest of the body (or to other areas of the brain)

• Neurotransmitters – chemical messengers that aid neurons in communicating with one another
  1. Hormones and genetic factors have the most impact on the behavior through their impact on neurotransmitters/neurotransmission

1. c) Neurocriminology tells us that individuals whose brains function differently than others are at risk for displaying differential behaviors
   1. Based on research on known criminals and tries to tie their behaviors (particularly violence) to a difference in brain structure or function
2. d) Prenatal alcohol exposure is one of the strongest links between brain development and later criminality
   1. Disney et al studied 1,252 17 year olds and tied conduct disorders with mothers’ alcohol use during pregnancy (even low levels of drinking – as little as 3 drinks per week)
3. e) Variations in particular genes can raise serotonin levels, which in turn may reduce one’s ability to control aggressive impulses
4. f) Raine et al suggest that abnormal and subcortical brain processes may predispose individuals to violence as detected by an MRI
5. g) Biosocial researchers propose that any influence highlighted by criminological research must be mediated by neurological functioning
   1. Less attention has been devoted to the neurological functioning of “normal” criminal offenders relative to nonoffenders in the general population (we know more about the worst of the worst criminals relative to ‘normal’ people)
6. h) The amygdala could be an area of interest for future research

1. The environment
   1. a) Biosocial criminologists tend to view the environmental influence in a different light compared to traditional sociologists’ use of environment
      1. Emphasis is placed on how the environment shapes biological risk factors
         1. Example – stressful experiences can trigger higher levels of cortisol. Those who live in impoverished neighborhoods may have higher baseline levels of cortisol as a result (primarily due to the stressful environment).
         2. Environment may determine which genes are expressed
            1. Complementary role with environment (e.g., environment and biology have an ‘additive’ effect on criminal behavior)
         3. Moderating role with environment
            1. Avshalom & Caspi find that boys with certain versions of the MAOA gene were more likely to develop antisocial behavior, but only if they were maltreated as children
         4. Policy implications of biosocial criminology
            1. Crime is not determined by biology
               1. a) Biological influences like hormones and genes make crime more or less probable
               2. b) Biology, like the environment, work in a probabilistic fashion
               3. c) Biological criminology has previously been wrought with the misuse and misinterpretation
               4. d) To some biosocial criminologists, the criminal is “broken” and, therefore is different from noncriminals
                  1. Others suggest the ‘blame’ is a philosophical question that cannot be answered with the standard tools of scientific inquiry
                  2. It may not be possible to “cure” or “fix” criminals; perhaps genetic, hormonal, or pharmaceutical therapies may be developed
               5. e) Biosocial theory, as recently expressed in criminology, is new and its development will continue into the coming decades
            2. Conclusion
               1. Biological explanations for crime and criminals have been around in one form or another for centuries; they are one of the original explanations, in fact
               2. Early explanations differ from recent ones in the following ways
                  1. a) The content of early biological theories examined physical characteristics that assumed to represent something about what was happening inside of the body
                  2. b) Early explanations for crime worked on the premise that certain features in an individual meant that the person definitely would be criminal (biology was destiny)
               3. Biological components must be placed in social context
               4. Physical/biological factors may make it more or less likely that someone will act in particular ways – a decidedly probabilistic view
               5. There is no crime gene; genetic influence do not operate in a vacuum

 

Discussion Questions

 

1. How have the factors on which biological theories focus changed over time?

 

Possible answer: Instead of the reliance on physical characteristics (or phenotype) like with the original biological theories of crime, current biosocial theories focus on four primary factors’ influence on criminal behavior: biological factors, genetic factors, the brain, and the environment. These factors include such things like differences in hormone levels, diet and nutrition, genetic material, structure and/or function of the brain, and how the environment exacerbates or mitigates the risk of each of these previous factors. Furthermore, early biological theorists suggested that criminality was determined at birth and was either present or absent in a person. Current biosocial thought suggests that biological factors, genetic factors, the brain, and the environment all play a probabilistic role in shaping criminality. In other words, these factors either increase or decrease the risk of crime behavior. Crime behaviors can also be present at one particular age or within a context and cease when circumstances change (e.g., when one gets older or moves out of a ‘bad’ neighborhood).

 

2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of trying to explain crime from a biological perspective?

 

Possible answer: A key strength of the biological perspective is providing some context to the intergenerational transference of crime problems. For example, studies of identical and fraternal twins have repeatedly shown some level of inheritance of problem and criminal behavior, even when adoptive parents raise a twin. However, the weakness of these theories (currently) is that a large amount of crime behavior remains unexplained: what about those that do not show differences in hormone levels, genes, or brain structure/function?

 

3. What are the common threads/ideas that run through the biological theories, from those that originally proposed in the eighteenth century through those still discussed today?

Possible answer: The key link between early biological theories and current biosocial theories is the idea that criminal behavior can be inherited and explained with biological processes. Earlier theories held tightly the notion of determinism – that inheritance either occurred or was absent. Later biosocial thought suggests that inheritance only shapes one’s risk for expressing criminal behavior across the life course. Early biological theorists did not have the tools current scientists have to explore the complex nature of the brain, brain chemistry, neurological pathways, hormones, genetic differences, and beyond. Instead, they tried to use phenotype differences to allude to biological differences. These efforts failed to garner empirical support while current techniques show promise.