Transcript Biological Theories

Early Biological Positivism
1850-1930
Lombroso’s “Born Criminal”
Criminals as “atavistic throwbacks”
Identified through presence of “stigmata”
Peaked nose (as bird of prey)
Sloped forehead, large jaws
Strong canine teeth (as with carnivores)
General hairiness of the body
Others: Phrenology, Body Type,
“feeblemindedness”
The XYY “supermale”
An extra Y chromosome
Initial discovery in 1961
Flurry of activity immediately after
Not a “supermale”
Low intelligence, physiological differences
More evidence that XXY abnormality related
to crime
Even here, very rare and due to learning
disorders
The demise of early
positivism
1. Poor theory
Single biological trait as direct cause of
crime.
2. Poor/biased research
Crime runs in families (Dugdale)
3. Dangerous policy implications
Eugenics movement
Largely discredited by Sociologists by 1950.
Where does biology stand
now?
Impression from the Barkan book?
Criticizes all biological research on “poor
methodology” or “shifting definitions of crime”
Example, Barkan: “Why don’t all aggressive or
risk-seeking people commit crimes?”
Football players, sky-divers
Response: But, why don’t most people who face
poverty and inequality commit crime?
Get a job at MacDonalds, muddle through life
Is Criminality Inherited?
KEY IS SEPARATING “NATURE” AND
“NURTURE”
Parental Deviance (Crime runs in family)
Twin Studies
Adoption Studies
Parental Deviance
Parent’s crime and deviance is a robust
predictor of the child’s delinquency
Due to genetics, or other factors?
Deviant parents more likely to use
harsh/erratic discipline, less supervision?
Deviant parents live in bad neighborhoods?
Deviant parents abuse children/each other?
Twin Studies
Compare MZ twins with DZ twins
Concordance rates = if one twin is
criminal, is the other?
Danish Study (Christiansen, 1979)
MZ=52%
DZ=22%
Adoption Studies
Compare the two sets of parents that an
adopted youth has.
Biological parentsgenetics
Adoptive parentssocial circumstance
Cross Fostering Analysis
Mednick et al. (1984)
Adoptive
Parents
Criminal?
YES
NO
Biological Parents
Criminal?
YES
NO
24.5%
14.7%
20.0%
13.5%
CRITICISMS OF THIS?
Modern Biosocial Theories
Biochemical Conditions
Nutrition, exposure to toxins, hormonal,
excessive sugar…
Direct cause: sugarattention/impulsive
Indirect causs:
exposure to leadimpaired learning,
cognition school failuredelinquency
Neurophysiological Factors
What factors can determine brain
functioning?
How do we measure brain functioning?
How does brain functioning relate to
criminal or deviant behavior?
Barkan’s Critique of Biology
and Crime
The “relativity of deviance”
Methodological problems
Inadequate control, small sample sizes, etc
“Group rate differences”
Social/policy implications
Can’t change biology?
Terrie Moffit’s Biosocial
Theory
Biology
Some children have slight neurophysiological deficits
Causes of NPD? Perinatal, genetic…
Results of NPD? “Difficult temperament,” Slow to
learn, difficult to parent
Environments
Some parents are poorly equipped to handle such a
child
Lack of resources, lack of parenting skills
SUMMARY OF BIOLOGY
All modern biological theories incorporate
sociological or psychological concepts.
Biology related in an indirect fashion--and
with the environment.
Example: Caspi’s research on female
criminality