What about the discussion of eugenics in lecture and the text surprised or stuck with you the most?
Please respond to the Question above. I have provided the chapter 4 and 5 attached files where it will help with the question.
What about the discussion of eugenics in lecture and the text surprised or stuck with you the most? Please respond to the Question above. I have provided the chapter 4 and 5 attached files where it wi
CHAPT ER F O UR EA RLY POSI TIV E S C HO OL PER SPEC TIVES OF C RIM IN ALIT Y LEA RNIN G O BJEC TIVE S Explain the underlying assumptions of the early positive school of criminology . Summarize the essence of Lombroso’ s theory of atavism and born criminals. Review the IQ testing era and its limitations. Describe Sheldon’s body type theory. Identify the main implications of the early positive school of criminology and their weaknesses. In this chapter, we discuss the dramatic dif ferences in assumptions between the classical and positive schools of criminological thought. W e also touch on the pre-Darwinian perspectives of human behavior (e.g., phrenology) as well as the influence Charles Darwin had on the perspectives of all social sciences, particularly criminology. Finally, we discuss the theories and methods used by early positivists, particularly Cesare Lombroso, IQ theorists, and body type researchers, with an emphasis on the criticisms of these perspectives, methodologies, and resulting policies. After many decades of dominance by the classical school (see Chapters 2 and 3 ), academics and scientists were becoming aware that the deterrence framework did not fully (and at times, even partially) explain the distribution of crime. Their restlessness led to new explanatory models of crime and behavior . Most of these perspectives focused on the fact that certain individuals or groups tend to of fend more than others and the idea that such “inferior” individuals should be controlled or even eliminated. This ideological framework fit a more general stance toward eugenics , the study of and policies related to the improvement of the human race via control over reproduction, which as we will see was explicitly mandated for certain groups. Thus, the conclusion was that there must be notable variations across individuals and groups that can help determine who is most at risk of offending. So, in the early to mid-1800s, several perspectives were of fered regarding how to determine which individuals or groups were most likely to commit crime. Many of these theoretical frameworks were made to distinguish the more “superior” individuals or groups from the “inferior” individuals or groups. Such intentions were likely related to the increased use of slavery in the world during the 1800s as well as imperialism’s fight to quell rebellions at that time. For example, slavery was at its peak in the United States during this period, and many European countries controlled many dozens of colonies, which they were trying to retain for profit and domain. Perhaps the first example of this belief was represented by craniometry . Craniometry is the belief that the size of the brain or skull represents the superiority or inferiority of certain individuals or ethnic or racial groups. 1 The size of the brain and skull were considered because, at that time, it was believed that a person’s skull perfectly conformed to brain structure; thus, the size of the skull was believed to reflect the size of the brain. Modern science has challenged this assumption, but there actually is a significant correlation between the size of the skull and the size of the brain. Still, even according to the assumptions of craniometrists, it is unlikely that much can be gathered about an individual’s intelligence from the overall size of the brain, and certainly the skull, from simple measurements of mass. The scientists who studied this model, if they were dealing with living subjects, would measure the various sizes or circumferences of the skulls. If they were dealing with recently dead subjects, then they would actually measure the brain weight or volume of the participants. When dealing with subjects who had died long before, craniometrists would measure the volume of skulls by pouring seeds inside and then pouring those that fit into graduated cylinders. Later, when these scientists realized that seeds were not a valid measure of volume, they moved toward using buckshot or ball bearings. Most studies by craniometrists tended to show that subjects of white or western European descent were superior to those of other ethnic groups in terms of brain volume or skull size. Furthermore, the front portion of the brain (i.e., the genu) was thought to be larger in superior individuals or groups, and the hind portion of the brain or skull (i.e., the splenium) was predicted to be larger in inferior individuals or groups. Notably , these researchers typically knew which brains or skulls belonged to which ethnic or racial group before measurements were taken, making for an unethical and improper methodology. Such biased measurements continued throughout the 19th century and into the early 1900s. 2 These examinations were largely done with the intention of furthering the assumptions of eugenics, which aimed to prove under the banner of science that certain individuals and ethnic or racial groups are inferior to others. The fact that this was their intent is underscored by subsequent tests using the same subjects but performed without knowledge of which skulls or brains were from certain ethnic or racial groups; these later studies showed only a small correlation between size of the skull or brain and certain behaviors or personalities. 3 Furthermore, once some of the early practitioners of craniometry died, their brains were found to have volumes that were less than average or average. The brain of K. F . Gauss, for example, was relatively small but more convoluted, with more gyri and fissures. Craniometrists then switched their postulates to say that more convoluted or complex brain structures, with more fissures and gyri, indicated superior brains. 4 However, this argument was even more tentative and vaguer than the former hypotheses of craniometrists and thus did not last long. The same was true of craniometry in general, thanks to its noticeable lack of validity . However, it is important to note that modern studies show that people who have significantly larger brains tend to score higher on intelligence tests. 5 Despite the failure of craniometry to explain the dif ference between criminals and noncriminals, scientists were not ready to give up on the assumption that criminal behavior could be explained by visual differences in the skull (or brain), and they certainly weren’t ready to give up the assumption that certain ethnic or racial groups were superior or inferior to others. Therefore, the experts of the time created phrenology . Phrenology is the science of determining human dispositions based on distinctions (e.g., bumps) in the skull, which were believed to conform to the shape of the brain. 6 Readers should keep in mind that much of the theorizing by phrenologists still aimed to support the assumptions of eugenics and show that certain individuals and groups of people are inferior or superior to others. Like the craniometrists, phrenologists assumed that the shape of the skull conformed to the shape of the brain. Thus, a bump or other abnormality on the skull directly related to an abnormality in the brain at that spot. Such assumptions have been refuted by modern scientific evidence, so it is not surprising that phrenology fell out of favor in criminological thought rather quickly. Like its predecessor , however, phrenology did yield some advances. Certain parts of the brain are indeed responsible for specific tasks. For example, in the original phrenological map, destructiveness was indicated by abnormalities above the left ear . Modern scientific studies show that the most vital part of the brain in terms of criminality associated with trauma is the left temporal lobe, the area above the left ear . 7 Also, most readers know that specific portions of the brain govern the operation of dif ferent physical activities; one area governs the action of our hands, whereas other areas govern our arms, legs, and so on. So, the phrenologists had a few things right, but they were wrong about the extent to which bumps on the skull could indicate who would be most disposed to criminal behavior. Photo 4 .1 N in ete enth -c e ntu ry p h re nolo gis ts b elie ve d th at each s e ctio n o f th e b ra in w as r e sp onsib le fo r a p artic u la r hum an p ers o nalit y tr a it . If a s e ctio n w as e nla rg ed o r s h ru nke n, th e p ers o nalit y w as a ss u m ed to b e lik e w is e a bnorm al. D octo rs , p artic u la rly th ose d oin g e ntr y e xa m in atio ns a t Am eric a n p ris o ns, w ou ld e xa m in e e ach n ew in m ate ’s h ead fo r bum ps o r c a vit ie s to d e ve lo p a c rim in al p ro file . F or e xa m ple , if t h e s e ctio n o f th e b ra in r e sp onsib le fo r a cq uis it iv e ness w as enla rg ed, th e o ff e nder w as p ro bably a th ie f. L om bro so a nd h is s ch ool c o m bin ed p hre n olo gy w it h o th er m odels th at in clu ded exte rn al p hysic a l tr a it s to s in gle o ut c rim in als fr o m th e g enera l popula tio n. Sourc e : © iS to ckP hoto .c o m / s co ts p ence r Once phrenology fell out of favor among scientists, researchers and society in general did not want to depart from the assumption that certain individuals or ethnic groups are inferior to others. Therefore, another field of study, known as physiognomy , became popular in the mid-1800s. Physiognomy is the study of facial and other bodily aspects to indicate developmental problems, such as criminality . Not surprisingly, the early physiognomy studies focused on contrasting various racial or ethnic groups to prove that some were superior or inferior to others. 8 Given modern understandings of science, it is not surprising that physiognomy did not last long as a respected scientific perspective of criminality . At any time other than the late 1800s, their ideas would not have been accepted for long, if at all. However , the theory emerged at an auspicious time. Specifically, Darwin published his work The Origin of Species in the late 1800s and made a huge impact on societal views regarding the rank order of groups in societies. Darwin’s model outlined a vague framework suggesting that humans had evolved from more primitive beings and that the human species (like all others) had evolved from a number of adaptations preferred by natural selection. In other words, some species are selected by their ability to adapt to the environment, whereas others do not adapt as well and die of f or at least become inferior in terms of dominance. This assumption of Darwin’s work, which was quickly and widely accepted by both society and scientists throughout the world, falsely led to an inclination to believe that certain ethnic or racial groups are inferior or superior to other groups. Despite a backlash by many religious authorities, who were likely threatened by the popularity of a theory that promoted natural design as opposed to a higher being or creator , Darwin had created a scientific snowball that spread like wildfire across virtually all scientific disciplines, particularly criminology. Darwin was not a criminologist, so he is not considered a father or theorist in the field. However, he did set the stage for what followed in criminological thought. Specifically , Darwin’s theory laid the groundwork for what would become the first major scientific theory of crime, namely , Lombroso’s theory of born criminals, which also tied together the assumptions and propositions of craniometry , phrenology, and physiognomy . LO M BRO SO’ S TH EOR Y O F A TA V IS M A ND B O RN C RIM IN ALS Basing his work on Darwin’ s theory of natural selection, Cesare Lombroso (1835– 1909) created what is widely considered the first attempt toward scientific theory in criminological thought. Most previous theorists were not scientists; Cesare Beccaria, for example, was trained in law and never tested his propositions. Unlike the craniometrists and phrenologists, Beccaria did not seek to explain levels of criminality. However , Lombroso was trained in medical science, and he aimed to document his observations and use scientific methodology . Furthermore, timing was on his side in the sense that Darwin’s theory was published 15 years prior to Lombroso’s major work, and in that time, the idea of evolution had become immensely popular with both scientists and the public. Lom bro so ’s T heo ry o f C rim e The first edition of Lombroso’ s The Criminal Man was published in 1876 and created an immediate response in most W estern societies, influencing both their ideas and policies related to crime and justice. 9 In this work, Lombroso outlined a theory of crime that largely brought together the pre-Darwinian theories of craniometry , phrenology, and physiognomy . Furthermore, Lombroso thought that certain groups and individuals were atavistic and that they likely were born to commit crime. Atavism refers to the idea that a person or feature of an individual is a throwback to an earlier stage of evolutionary development. In other words, Lombroso thought serious criminals were lower forms of humanity in terms of evolutionary progression. For example, Lombroso would probably have suggested that chronic of fenders are more like earlier stages of humankind—that is, like missing links —than they are like modern humans. Lombroso noted other types of offenders, such as the mentally ill and criminaloids , who committed minor offenses due to external or environmental circumstances, but he argued that the born criminals should be the target in addressing crime, insisting that they were the most serious and violent criminals in any society . These are what most criminologists now refer to as chronic offenders. Furthermore, Lombroso claimed that born criminals cannot be stopped from their natural tendencies to be antisocial. On the other hand, Lombroso claimed that, although it was their nature to commit crime, born criminals could be stopped, or at least partially deterred, by society . According to Lombroso, societies could identify born criminals, even early in life, through their stigmata . Stigmata are physical manifestations of the atavism of an individual—that is, features indicating a prior evolutionary stage of development. Lom bro so ’s L is t o f St ig m ata According to Lombroso, more than five stigmata indicate that an individual is atavistic and inevitably will be a born criminal. Understandably , readers may be wondering what these stigmata are, given their importance. This is a great question, but the answer varies. In the beginning, this list was largely based on Lombroso’ s work as a physician; it included features such as large eyes and large ears. Lombroso changed this list as he went along, however, even in the last edition of his book published well into the 1900s, which might be considered poor science. For the most part, stigmata consisted of facial and bodily features that deviated from the norm, which is almost anything that went outside the bell curve of normal human physical development—in other words, abnormally small or large noses, abnormally small or large ears, abnormally small or large eyes, or abnormally small or large jaws. Lombroso also added some extraphysiological features, such as tattoos and a family history of epilepsy and other disorders. 10 Although tattoos have been correlated with crime and delinquency , is it likely that they cause antisocial behavior? Given Lombroso’s model that people are born criminal, it is unlikely that such factors are causally linked to criminality . How many babies are born with tattoos? Ignoring the illogical nature of many of the stigmata, Lombroso professed that people who had more than five of these physical features were born criminals and that something should be done to prevent their inevitable future of fending career. Photo 4 .2 C esa re L om bro so ( 1 83 7–1909). S ourc e : R epro duce d in “ R asse nku nde d es jü dis ch en V olk e s” b y H ans F . K . G ünth er 1929, J . F . L ehm anns V erla g, M ünch en, v ia W ik im ed ia C om mons As a physician working for the Italian army , Lombroso examined the bodies of war criminals who had been captured and brought in for analysis. According to Lombroso, he first came to the realization of the nature of criminals when a particular individual was brought in for him to examine: This was not merely an idea, but a flash of inspiration. At the sight of that skull, I seemed to see all of a sudden, lighted up as a vast plain under a flaming sky, the problem of the nature of the criminal—an atavistic being who reproduces in his person the ferocious instincts of primitive humanity and the inferior animals. 11 This was Lombroso’ s first exposure to such a criminal, and this account of it was his first acknowledgment of the theory he created. He expanded on this theory by specifying some of the physical features he observed in this individual: Thus were explained anatomically the enormous jaws, high cheek bones . . . solitary lines in the palms, extreme size of the orbits, handle-shaped ears found in criminals, savages and apes, insensibility to pain, extremely acute sight, tattooing, excessive idleness, love of orgies, and the irresponsible craving of evil for its own sake, the desire not only to extinguish life in the victim, but to mutilate the corpse, tear its flesh and drink its blood. 12 Although most people may now laugh at his words, at the time he wrote this description, it would have rung true to most readers, which is likely why his book was the dominant text for many decades in the criminological field. In this description, Lombroso incorporates many of the core principles of his theory , including the idea that criminals are atavistic or biological throwbacks from evolution as well as the premise that they can be identified by “stigmata.” A good example of the popular acceptance of Lombroso’s “scientific” stigmata was Bram Stoker’s use of them in the 1896 novel Dracula , which featured a character based on Lombrosian traits of a villain, such as a high-bridged, thin nose; arched nostrils; massive eyebrows; and pointed ears. This novel was published when Lombroso’ s theory was highly dominant in society and in science. Lombroso’ s ideas became popular among academics, scientists, philosophers, fiction writers, and those responsible for criminal justice policy. Beyond identifying born criminals by their stigmata, Lombroso said he could associate the stigmata with certain types of criminals—anarchists, burglars, murderers, shoplifters, and so on. Of course, his work appears invalid by modern research standards. Lom bro so a s t h e F ath er o f C rim in olo gy a n d t h e F ath er o f t h e Po sit iv e Sc hool Lombroso’ s theory came a decade and a half after Darwin’ s work had been published and had spread rapidly throughout the Western world. Also, Lombroso’s model supported what were then the W estern world’s views on slavery , deportation, and so on. Due to this timing and the fact that Lombroso became known as the first individual who actually tested his hypotheses through observation, Lombroso is widely considered the father of criminology . This title does not indicate respect for his theory, which has been largely rejected, or for his methods, which are considered highly invalid by modern standards. It is deserved, however , in the sense that he was the first person to gain recognition by testing his theoretical propositions. Furthermore, his theory coincided with political movements that became popular at that time: the fascism and Nazism of the early 1900s. Beyond being considered the father of criminology, Lombroso is also considered the father of the positive school of criminology because he was the first to gain prominence in identifying factors beyond free will and free choice, which the classical school said were the sole cause of crime. Although previous theorists, such as craniometrists and phrenologists, had presented perspectives that went beyond free will, Lombroso was the first to gain widespread attention. Lombroso’ s perspective gained almost immediate support in all developed countries of that time, which is the most likely reason why Lombroso is considered the father of the positive school of criminology. It is important to understand the assumptions of positivism , which most experts consider somewhat synonymous with the term determinism . Determinism is the assumption that most human behavior is determined by factors beyond free will and free choice. In other words, determinism (i.e., the positive school) assumes that human beings do not decide how they will act by logically thinking through the costs and benefits of a given situation. Rather , the positive school attributes all kinds of behavior, especially crime, to biological, psychological, and sociological variables. Many readers probably feel they chose their career paths and made most other key decisions in their lives. However , scientific evidence shows otherwise. For example, studies clearly show that far more than 90% of the world’ s population has adopted the religious affiliation (e.g., Baptist, Buddhist, Catholic, Judaist) of their parents or caretakers. Therefore, what most people consider to be an extremely important decision—the choice of beliefs regarding a higher being or force—is almost completely determined by the environment in which they were brought up. Almost no one sits down and studies various religions before deciding which one suits them the best. Rather, in almost all cases, religion is determined by culture, and this finding goes against the classical school’ s assumption that free will rules. The same type of argument can be made about the clothes we wear , the food we prefer, and the activities that give us pleasure. Another way to distinguish positivism and determinism from the classical school lies in the way scientists view human behavior , which can be seen best in an analogy with chemistry. Specifically , a chemist assumes that, if a certain element is subjected to certain temperatures, pressures, or mixtures with other elements, a predicted response will result. In a comparable way , a positivist assumes that, when human beings are subjected to poverty, delinquent peers, low intelligence, or other factors, they will react and behave in predictable ways. Therefore, there is virtually no difference in how a chemist feels about particles and elements and how a positivistic scientist feels about how humans react when exposed to biological and social factors. In Lombroso’ s case, the deterministic factor was the biological makeup of the individual. However , we shall see in the next several chapters that positivistic theories focus on a large range of variables, from biology to psychology to social aspects. For example, many readers may believe that bad parenting, poverty , and associating with delinquent peers are some of the most important factors in predicting criminality . If you believe that such variables have a significant influence on decisions to commit crime, then you are likely a positive theorist; you believe that crime is caused by factors above and beyond free choice or free will. Lom bro so ’s Po lic y Im plic a tio ns Beyond the theoretical aspects of Lombroso’ s theory of criminality, his perspective had profound consequences for policy . Lombroso was called to testify in numerous criminal processes and trials to determine the guilt or innocence of suspects. Under the banner of science (comparable to what we consider DNA or fingerprint analysis in modern times), Lombroso was asked to specify whether a suspect had committed a crime. 13 Lombroso based such judgments on the visual stigmata he could see among suspects. 14 Lombroso documented many of his experiences as an expert witness at criminal trials. Here is one example: “[One suspect] was, in fact, the most perfect type of the born criminal: enormous jaws, frontal sinuses, and zygomata, thin upper lip, huge incisors, unusually large head. . . . [H]e was convicted.” 15 When Lombroso was not available for such “scientific” determinations of the guilty persons, his colleagues or students (often referred to as lieutenants) were often sent. Some of these students, such as Enrico Ferri and Raphael Garrofalo, became active in the fascist regime of Italy in the early 1900s. This model of government, like that of the Nazi Party of Germany , sought to remove “inferior” groups from society . Another policy implication in some parts of the world was the identification of young children based on observed stigmata, which often become noticeable in the first 5 to 10 years of life. This led to tracking or isolating of certain children, largely based on physiological features. Although many readers may consider such policies ridiculous, modern medicine has supported the identification, documentation, and importance of what are termed minor physical anomalies (MPAs) , which it holds may indicate high risk of developmental problems. Some of these MP As include the following: Head circumference out of the normal range Fine, “electric” hair More than one hair whorl Epicanthus, which is observed as a fold of skin extending from the lower eyelids to the nose and appears as droopy eyelids Hypertelorism (orbital), which represents an increased interorbital distance Malformed ears Low-set ears Excessively large gap between the first and second toes Webbing between toes or fingers No earlobes Curved fifth finger Third toe longer than the second toe Asymmetrical ears Furrowed tongue Simian crease 16 Given that such visible physical aspects are still correlated with developmental problems, including criminality , it is obvious that Lombroso’s model of stigmata for predicting antisocial problems has implications today . Such implications are more accepted by modern medical science than they are in the criminological literature. Furthermore, some modern scientific studies have shown that being unattractive predicts criminal offending, which somewhat supports Lombroso’ s theory of crime. 17 About three decades after Lombroso’ s original work was published, and after a long period of dominance, criminologists began to question his theory of atavism and stigmata. Furthermore, it became clear that more was involved in criminality than just the way people looked, such as psychological aspects of individuals. However , scientists and societies were not ready to depart from theories like Lombroso’s, which assumed that certain people or groups of people were inferior to others, so they simply chose another factor to emphasize: intelligence or IQ. CASE STUDY CARLT O N “ ST OCKIN G S TR ANG LE R ” G ARY Carlton Gary was a significantly violent of fender, who was nicknamed “the Stocking Strangler” because he would break into women’ s homes in Columbus, Georgia, then beat them up, rape them, and use a stocking or scarf to strangle them. He is believed to have killed seven white women aged 55 to 90 using this same consistent method. One interesting fact is that Gary was a rather handsome man who even worked on local television as a model, and he was dating a female deputy sheriff during the time he committed some of these murders. Additionally , he was a loyal caregiver for his elderly aunt. However, he was not only a murderer but also a drug dealer and pimp. Gary was clearly sly, perhaps even intelligent, which was how he managed to escape from a prison in Onondaga County , New York, by sawing through bars of his cell; even though he broke his ankle in his jump from the prison wall, he still got away by stealing a bicycle. He also escaped from a South Carolina prison, and in Georgia he successfully prolonged his killing career by falsely (and convincingly) accusing another man for one of his murders. Gary was a chronic offender who had been in and out of trouble since he was a child. But he also had a high IQ and showed near genius-like levels in his creative attempts to escape authorities numerous times. What explains the offending by this individual? According to Dr . Adrian Raine at the University of Pennsylvania, one of the leading experts on biopsychosocial factors in criminality , many of Gary’s problems relate to various biological and social risk factors coming together and creating a type of perfect storm. Specifically , he points out that Carlton Gary never really knew his father, having met him only once when he was 12. His mother (and her boyfriends) were physically abusive to him when he was young, and then his mother essentially abandoned him at an early age, so he was passed around to various relatives and acquaintances at least 15 times before his first arrest as a youth. Gary resorted to living on the streets and, often malnourished, eating out of garbage cans. Beyond the malnutrition, another physiological risk factor was that he was knocked unconscious during school recess at a young age and was diagnosed with minimal brain dysfunction. Additionally, he had at least five or more minor physical anomalies, such as adherent ear lobes and webbing of his fingers. According to Dr. Raine, the culmination and, more importantly , the interaction among these biological and social/environmental factors is likely the reason why Carlton Gary became such a persistent, predatory killer . Source: Adrian Raine, The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime (New York: Pantheon, 2013). TH E IQ T EST IN G ER A Despite the evidence presented against Lombroso, his theorizing remained dominant until the early 1900s, when criminologists realized that stigmata and the idea of born criminals were not valid. However , even at that time, theorists and researchers were not ready to give up on the eugenics assumption that certain ethnic or racial groups were superior or inferior to others. Thus, a new theory emerged based on a more quantified measure that originated, with benevolent intentions, with Alfred Binet in France. This new measure was IQ, short for intelligence quotient . At that time, IQ was calculated as chronological age divided by mental age, which was then multiplied by 100, with the average score being 100. This scale has changed enormously over time, but the basic premise was that the test could be used to determine whether someone was above or below average intelligence (100). As mentioned previously, Binet had good intentions: He created IQ scores to identify youths not performing up to par on academic skills. Binet was explicit in stating that IQ could be changed; the reason he proposed a score to identify slow learners was so that they could be trained to increase their IQs. 18 However , when Binet’ s work was brought over to the United States, his basic assumptions and propositions were twisted. One of the most prominent individuals who used Binet’ s IQ test in the United States for purposes of deporting, incapacitating, sterilizing, and otherwise ridding society of low-IQ individuals was H. H. Goddard. Goddard is generally considered the leading authority on the use and interpretation of IQ testing in the United States. 19 In adapting Binet’ s model to examine immigrants to the United States, Goddard proposed dif ferent assumptions regarding intelligence or IQ than did Binet. Goddard asserted that IQ was static or innate, meaning that such levels could not be changed, even with training. His assumption was that intelligence was inherited from parents and passed from generation to generation. Goddard labeled low IQ feeblemindedness , which in the 1900s actually became a technical, scientific term characterizing those who had significantly below-average levels of intelligence. Of course, being a scientist, Goddard specified certain levels of feeblemindedness, which were ranked based on the degree to which scores were below average. Ranking from the highest to the lowest intelligence, the first group were the morons , the second-lowest group were the imbeciles , and the lowest- intelligence group were the idiots. According to Goddard, from a eugenics point of view, the biggest threat to the progress of humanity was not the idiots but the morons. In Goddard’ s words, “The idiot is not our greatest problem. . . . He does not continue the race with a line of children like himself. . . . It is the moron type that makes for us our great problem.” 20 That is, the moron is the one group out of the three categories of feebleminded who is smart enough to slip through the cracks and reproduce. Goddard received many grants to fund his research to identify the feebleminded. Goddard took his research team to the major immigration center at Ellis Island in the early 1900s to identify the feebleminded as they attempted to enter the United States. Many members of his team were women, who he felt were better at distinguishing the feebleminded by sight: The people who are best at this work, and who I believe should do this work, are women. W omen seem to have closer observation than men. It was quite impossible for others to see how . . . women could pick out the feeble- minded without the aid of the Binet test at all. 21 Ph oto 4 .3 H . H . G oddard ( 1 866–19 57). S ourc e : H enry H . G oddard , c ir c a 1 910s, v ia W ik im ed ia C om mons Goddard was proud of the increase in the deportation of potential immigrants to the United States, enthusiastically reporting that deportations for the reason of mental deficiency increased by 350% in 1913 and 570% in 1914 over the averages of the preceding 5 years. 22 However , over time, Goddard realized that his policy recommendations of deportation, incarceration, and sterilization were not based on accurate science. After consistently validating his IQ test on immigrants and mental patients, Goddard finally tested his intelligence scale on a relatively representative cross-section of American citizens, namely draftees for military service during W orld War I. The results showed that many of these recruits would score as feebleminded (i.e., as having a mental age of less than 12) on the IQ test. Therefore, Goddard lowered the criterion for determining feeblemindedness from the mental age of 12 to that of age 8. Although this appears to be a clear admission that his scientific method was inaccurate, Goddard continued to promote his model of the feebleminded for many years, and societies used his ideas. However , toward the end of his career , Goddard admitted that intelligence could be improved, despite his earlier assumptions that it was innate and static. 23 In fact, Goddard actually claimed that he had “gone over to the enemy .” 24 However , despite Goddard’s admission that his assumptions and testing were not determinant of individuals’ intelligence levels, the snowball had been rolling for too long and had gathered too much strength to fight even the most notable theorists’ admonishments. Sterilization of individuals, mostly females, continued in the United States based on scores of intelligence tests. Often the justification was not a person’ s own intelligence scores but those of their mother or father. Goddard had proclaimed that the germ- plasm determining feeblemindedness was passed on from one generation to the next, so it inevitably resulted in offspring being feebleminded as well. Thus, the U.S. government sterilized individuals, typically women, based on the IQ scores of their parents. The case of Buck v. Bell , brought to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927, dealt with the issue of sterilizing individuals who had scored, or whose parents had scored, as mentally deficient on intelligence scales. The majority opinion, written by one of the Court’s most respected jurists, Oliver W endell Holmes Jr., stated: We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the state for these lesser sacrifices. . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough. 25 Thus, the highest court in the United States upheld the use of sterilization for the purposes of limiting reproduction among individuals who were deemed feebleminded according to an IQ score. Such sterilizations continued until the 1970s, when the practice was finally halted. Governors of many states, such as North Carolina, V irginia, and California, have given public apologies for what was done. For example, in 2002, the governor of California, Gray Davis, apologized for the state law passed almost a century earlier that had resulted in the sterilization of about 19,000 women in California. Although this aspect of U.S. history is often hidden from the public, it did occur , and it is important to acknowledge this blot on our nation’s history, especially at a time when we were fighting abuses of civil rights by the Nazis and other regimes. The sterilizations, deportations, and incarcerations based on IQ testing are an embarrassing episode in the history of the United States. For decades, the issue of IQ was not researched or discussed much in the literature. However , in the 1970s, an important study was published in which T ravis Hirschi and Michael Hindelang examined the effect of intelligence on youths’ behaviors. 26 Hirschi and Hindelang found that, among youths of the same race and social class, intelligence had a significant effect on delinquency and criminality among individuals. This study, as well as others, showed that the IQ of delinquents or criminals is about 10 points lower than that of noncriminals. 27 This study led to a rebirth in research regarding intelligence testing within the criminological perspective. A number of recent studies have shown that certain types of intelligence are more important than others. For example, several studies have shown that having low verbal intelligence has the most significant impact on predicting delinquent and criminal behavior . 28 This tendency makes sense, because verbal skills are important for virtually all aspects of life, from everyday interactions with significant others to filling out forms at work to dealing with people via employment. In contrast, most people do not require advanced math or quantitative skills at their jobs or in day-to-day experiences, let alone spatial and other forms of intelligence that are more abstract. Thus, the fact that low verbal IQ is the type of intelligence that represents the most direct prediction for crime is most likely due to the general need for verbal skills in routine daily activities. After all, people who lack communication skills will likely find it hard to obtain or retain employment or deal with family and social problems. This rebirth in studies regarding the link between intelligence and crime seemed to reach a peak with the publication of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’ s The Bell Curve in 1994. 29 Although this publication changed the terms moron , imbecile , and idiot to relatively benign terms (e.g., cognitively disadvantaged ), their argument was consistent with that of the feeblemindedness researchers of the early 20th century . Herrnstein and Murray argued that people with low IQ scores are somewhat destined to be unsuccessful in school, become unemployed, produce illegitimate children, and commit crime. They also suggest that IQ or intelligence is primarily innate, or genetically determined, and that there is little chance of improving it. These authors also noted that African Americans tended to score lowest, whereas Asians and Jewish people tended to score highest, and they of fered results from social indicators supporting their argument that the intelligence levels of the latter resulted in relative success in life in terms of group-level statistics. This book produced a public outcry, resulting in symposiums at major universities and other venues in which the authors’ postulates were largely condemned. As noted by other reviews of the impact of this work, some professors at public institutions were sued in court because they used this book in their classes. 30 The book received blistering reviews from fellow scientists. 31 However , few of these scientific critics have fully addressed the observation that African Americans generally score low on intelligence tests and that Asians and Jews score higher on these examinations. Furthermore, none has adequately addressed the issue that—even within these populations—low IQ scores (especially on verbal tests) predict crime. For example, within samples of African Americans, the group that scores lowest on verbal intelligence consistently commits more crime and is more likely to become delinquent or criminal. So, despite the harsh criticism of The Bell Curve , it is apparent that there is some validity to the authors’ arguments. Y et cogent arguments remain that these tests are culturally biased and in need of either redevelopment or even elimination. Toward that end, some colleges and universities are actually removing a standardized test score requirement for admission. With the popularity of intelligence testing and IQ scores in the early 20th century , it is not surprising that this was also the period when other psychological models of deviance and criminality became popular. However, one of the most popular involved body type theories. BO DY TYPE TH EOR Y: S H ELD O N’S M ODEL O F SOM ATO TYPI NG Although there were numerous theories based on body types in the late 1800s and early 1900s, such as Lombroso’ s and those of others who called themselves criminal anthropologists, none of these perspectives had a more enduring impact than that of William Sheldon. In the mid-1940s, a new theoretical perspective merged the concepts of biology and psychology. Sheldon claimed that, in the embryonic and fetal stages of development, individuals tend to have an emphasis on certain tissue layers. 32 According to Sheldon, these varying degrees of emphasis are largely due to heredity and lead to the development of certain body types and temperaments or personalities. This became the best-known body type theory , also known as somatotyping . According to Sheldon, all embryos must develop three distinct tissue layers, and this much is still acknowledged by perinatal medical researchers. The first layer of tissue is the endoderm , which is the inner layer of tissues and includes the internal organs, such as the stomach, large intestine, and small intestine. The middle layer of tissue, called the mesoderm , includes the muscles, bones, ligaments, and tendons. The ectoderm is the outer layer of tissue, which includes the skin, capillaries, and much of the nervous system’s sensors. Sheldon used these medical facts regarding various tissue layers to propose that certain individuals tend to emphasize certain tissue layers relative to others, typically due to inherited dispositions. In turn, Sheldon believed that such emphases lead to certain body types in an individual, such that people who have a focus on their endoderms in embryonic development will inevitably become endomorphic , or obese (see Photo 4.5a). According to this theory , individuals who have an emphasis on the middle layer of tissue will typically become mesomorphic , or of an athletic or muscular build (see Photo 4.5b), while individuals who have an emphasis on the outer layer will end up with an ectomorphic build, or thin (see Photo 4.5c). Photo 4 .4 a En dom orp h. Ph ysic a l t r a it s : s o ft b ody, u nderd eve lo ped m uscle s, r o und s h ape, o ve rd eve lo ped dig estiv e s yste m . As so cia te d p ers o nalit y tr a it s : lo ve o f fo od, to le ra nce , e ve nness o f e m otio ns, lo ve o f c o m fo rt, s o cia bilit y , g ood h um or, r e la xe d m ood, n eed fo r a ff e ctio n. Sourc e : A dapte d fr o m E ncyclo paedia B rit a n nic a , In c. 2 012 Ph oto 4 .4 b M eso m orp h. Ph ysic a l t r a it s : h ard , m uscu la r b ody; o ve rly m atu re a ppeara n ce ; r e cta ngula r s h ape; th ic k s kin ; uprig ht p ostu re . As so cia te d p ers o nalit y tr a it s : lo ve o f adve ntu re , d esir e fo r p ow er a nd d om in ance , c o ura ge, in dif f e re nce to w hat o th ers th in k o r w an t, a sse rtiv e m ie n, bold ness, z e st fo r p hysic a l a ctiv it y , c o m petit iv e n atu re , lo ve o f ris k a nd c h ance . Sourc e : A dapte d fr o m E ncyclo paedia B rit a n nic a , In c. 2 012 Photo 4 .4 c Ec to m orp h. Ph ysic a l tr a it s : th in , fla t c h est; d elic a te b uild ; y o ung a ppeara nce ; lig ht m usclin g; s to oped s h ould ers ; la rg e b ra in . As so cia te d p ers o nalit y tr a it s : s e lf – c o nscio usn ess, p re fe re nce fo r p riv a cy, in tr o ve rs io n, in hib it io n, s o cia l a nxie ty , a rtis tic in clin atio n, m en ta l in te nsit y , e m otio nal r e str a in t. S ourc e : A dapte d fr o m E ncyclo paedia B rit a n nic a , In c. 2 012 Sheldon and his research team graded each subject on three dimensions corresponding to these body types. Each body type was measured on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being the highest score. Obviously , no one could score a 0 for any body type because all tissue layers are needed for survival; we all need our internal organs, bone and muscular structure, and outer systems (e.g., skin, capillaries). Each somatotype always had the following order: endomorphy , mesomorphy, ectomorphy. Thus, the scores on a typical somatotype might be 3-6-2, which would indicate that this person scored a 3 (a little lower than average) on endomorphy , a 6 (high) on mesomorphy, and a 2 (relatively low) on ectomorphy . According to Sheldon’s theory, this hypothetical subject would be a likely candidate for criminal activity because of the relatively high score on mesomorphy . In fact, the results from his data, as well as all studies that have examined the association of body types with delinquency or criminality, would support this prediction. Perhaps most important, Sheldon proposed that these body types matched personality traits or temperaments. Individuals who were endomorphic (obese), Sheldon claimed, tended to be more jolly or lazy. The technical term for this temperament is viscerotonic . In contrast, people who were mesomorphic (muscular) typically had risk-taking and aggressive temperaments, called somotonic . Last, individuals who were ectomorphic (thin) tended to have introverted or shy personalities, which is referred to as cerebrotonic . According to Sheldon, members of the middle group, the mesomorphs, obviously had the highest propensity toward criminality because they were disposed toward a risk-taking and aggressive personality. Interestingly , many politicians were subjects in Sheldon’ s research. Most first-year students at Ivy League schools were asked to pose for photos for Sheldon’ s studies. The Smithsonian Institution still retains a collection of nude photos of George W . Bush, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and many other notable figures. 33 Sheldon used poor methodology to test his theory . He based his measures of subjects’ body types on what he subjectively judged from viewing three perspectives of each subject and often from only three pictures taken of each subject in the three poses. He also had his trained staff view many of the photos and make their determinations of how these individuals scored on each category of body type. The reliability among these scorings has been shown to be weak, meaning that the trained staff did not tend to agree with Sheldon or among themselves on the somatotypes for each participant. This is not surprising, given the high level of variation in body types and the fact that Sheldon and his colleagues did not employ the technology used today , such as caliper tests and submersion in water tanks, which provide the information for which he was searching. People may alter their weights, going from an ectomorphic or mesomorphic build to a more endomorphic form, or vice versa. Presented with the argument that individuals often alter their body types via diet or exercise, Sheldon responded that he could tell what the “natural” body type of each individual was from the three pictures taken. Obviously, this position is not a strong one, as demonstrated by the poor interrater reliability shown by his staf f. Therefore, Sheldon’s methodology is questionable, which casts doubt on the entire theoretical framework. Despite the problems in his methodology , Sheldon showed that mesomorphs, or individuals who had muscular builds and tended to take more risks, were more delinquent and criminal than individuals who had other body types or temperaments. 34 Furthermore, other researchers, even those who despised Sheldon’ s theory, found the same associations between mesomorphy and criminality as well as related temperaments (i.e., somotonic) and criminality . 35 Subsequent studies showed that mesomorphic boys were far more likely to have personality traits that predicted criminality , such as aggression, short temper , self-centeredness, and impulsivity. Recent theorists have also noted the link between an athletic, muscular build and the highly extroverted, aggressive personality often associated with this body type. 36 In fact, some recent theorists have gone so far as to claim that chronic of fenders, both male and female, can be identified early in life by their relatively V-shaped pelvic structure as opposed to a U-shaped pelvic structure. 37 The V -shaped pelvis is said to indicate relatively high levels of androgens (male hormones, like testosterone) in the system, which predisposes individuals toward crime. On the other hand, a more U- shaped pelvis indicates relatively low levels of such androgens and therefore lower propensity toward aggression and criminality . Using this logic, it may be true that more hair on an individual’s arms (whether that person be male or female) is predictive of a high likelihood for committing crime. However , no research exists regarding this factor. Nevertheless, recent research in the field of biosocial criminology , to be reviewed later in this book, returns to some of these biological characteristics as well as genetic factors as being relevant for understanding criminal activity, especially in tandem with environmental risks. 38 Still, sociologists have taken issue with the reasons for this association. Whereas Sheldon claimed it was due to inherited traits for a certain body type, sociologists argue that this association is due to societal expectations: Muscular male youths would be encouraged to engage in risk-taking and aggressive behavior. For example, a young male with an athletic build would be encouraged to join sports teams and engage in high-risk behaviors by peers. Who would gangs most desire as members? More muscular, athletic individuals would be better at fighting and performing acts that require a certain degree of physical strength and stamina. It is now established that mesomorphs are more likely to commit crime. 39 Furthermore, the personality traits linked to having an athletic or muscular build are dispositions toward risk-taking and aggressiveness, and few scientists dispute this correlation. No matter which theoretical model is adopted—whether the biopsychologists’ or the sociologists’—the fact is that mesomorphs are indeed more likely to be risk-taking and aggressive and, thus, to commit more crime than individuals of other body types. However , whether the cause is biological or sociological is a debate that shows the importance of theory in criminological research. After all, the link between mesomorphy and criminality is now undisputed; the explanation of why this link exists has become a theoretical debate. Readers may make their own determination—if not now, then later . Our position is that both biology and social environment are likely to interact with one another in explaining this link. Thus, it is most likely that both nature and nurture are at play in this association between mesomorphy and crime, and both Sheldon and his critics may be correct. A middle ground can often be found in theorizing on criminality . It is important to keep in mind that theories in criminology, as a science, are always considered subject to falsification and criticism and can always be improved, especially as new data are collected and methods of research are improved. Therefore, our stance on the validity and influence of this theory , as well as others, should not be surprising. POLIC Y IM PL IC ATIO NS Many policy implications can be derived from the theories presented in this chapter . First, one could propose more thorough medical screening at birth and in early childhood, especially regarding minor physical anomalies (MPAs). The studies reviewed in this chapter obviously implicate numerous MPAs in developmental problems (most of them arising in the womb). These MPAs are a red flag signaling problems, especially in cognitive abilities, which are likely to have a significant impact on propensity for criminal behavior. 40 Recent reviews of such MP As have been found to be important in identifying red flags for higher likelihood for criminal behavior , even in children as young as age 3. 41 Furthermore, recent studies have found that a high number of MP As interact with other social factors. 42 Specifically , MPAs have been found to interact with environmental risk factors, such as family disorder or adversity , consistently in prediction of antisocial or criminal adults. 43 Other policy implications derived from the theories and findings of this chapter involve having same-sex classes for children in school because they focus on deficiencies that have been shown for both young boys and girls. Numerous school districts now have policies that specify same-sex math courses for female children. This same strategy might be considered for male children in English or literature courses because males have a biological disposition for a lower aptitude than females in this area of study . Furthermore, far more screening should be done to determine IQ and aptitude levels of young children to identify which children require extra attention because studies show that such early intervention can make a big dif ference in improving their IQ and aptitude. 44 A report that reviewed the extant literature regarding what types of programs work best for reducing crime noted the importance of diagnosing early head trauma and further concluded that one of the most consistently supported programs for such at- risk children are those that involve weekly infant home visitation. 45 Another obvious policy implication derived from biosocial theory is mandatory health insurance for pregnant mothers and children, which is likely the most efficient way to reduce crime in the long term. 46 Finally , all youths should be screened for abnormal levels of hormones, neurotransmitters, and toxins (especially lead). 47 C O NCLU SI ON In this chapter , we discussed the development of the early positive school of criminology. The positive school can be seen as the opposite of the classical school perspective, which we covered in Chapters 2 and 3 , because positivism assumes that individuals have little free will—or at least not as much as expected within the classic school perspective; rather , criminal behavior is considered to be the result of determinism, which means that factors other than rational decision-making, such as poverty, intelligence, bad parenting, and unemployment, influence us and determine our behavior . One key question is how “hard” or “strict” this determinism is, or is it a “heightened probability”? The earliest positivist theories, such as craniometry and phrenology , were developed in the early 1800s but did not become popular outside of scientific circles, likely because they were presented prior to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. In the 1860s, Darwin’s theory became widely accepted, which set the stage for the father of criminology, Lombroso, to propose his theory of born criminals. Lombroso’ s theory was based on Darwin’s theory of evolution and argued that the worst criminals are born that way, being biological throwbacks to an earlier stage of evolution. Unfortunately, Lombroso’s theory led to numerous policies that fit the philosophy and politics of fascism, which found useful a theory proposing that certain people were inferior to others. However , Lombroso and many of his contemporaries became aware that the field should shift to a more multifactorial approach, such as one emphasizing how environment and social factors interact with physiological influences. We also discussed theories regarding low IQ scores, traditionally known as feeblemindedness. Although most recent studies show a correlation between crime and low IQ, this association is not as strong as thought in the early 1900s. Modern studies show consistent evidence that low verbal IQ is related to criminality , 48 especially when coupled with sociological factors, such as weak family structure. This is the state of the criminological field today , and it is discussed in the next chapter . Finally, we explored the theories and evidence regarding body types in predisposing an individual toward criminality . Studies have shown that the more athletic or mesomorphic an individual is, the higher the probability that this individual will be involved in criminality. This relationship is likely based on hormonal levels, and this type of association is explored in the next chapter . We have examined a variety of physiological and psychological factors that predict criminal of fending according to empirical research. Still, the existence of such influence is largely conditional—that is, based on environmental and social factors. The emergence of biosocial criminology , and even biopsychosocial criminology, is testimony to the fact that individual and environmental characteristics combine to increase the chances of certain types of antisocial and criminal behavior . Chapte r Su mmary The positive school of criminology assumes the opposite of the classical school. Whereas the classical school assumes that individuals commit crime because they freely choose to act after rationally considering the expected costs and benefits of the behavior , the positive school assumes that individuals have virtually no free will or choice in the matter; rather , their behavior is determined by factors outside of free will, such as poverty, low intelligence, bad child-rearing, and unemployment. The earliest positive theories, such as craniometry and phrenology, emphasized measuring the size and shape of the skull and brain. These perspectives did not become popular because they preceded Darwin’ s theory of evolution. Lombroso, the father of criminology, presented a theoretical model that assumed the worst criminals are born that way . Highly influenced by Darwin, Lombroso claimed that born criminals are evolutionary throwbacks who are not as highly developed as most people. Lombroso claimed that these born criminals could be identified by physical features called stigmata. This led to numerous policy implications that fit with the societal beliefs at that time, such as fascism. In the early 1900s, the IQ test was invented in France and was quickly used by American researchers in their quest to identify the feebleminded. This led to massive deportations, sterilizations, and institutionalizations across the United States and elsewhere. Modern studies support a link between low verbal IQ and criminality , even within a given race, social class, or gender. Merging elements of the early physiological and psychological perspectives are body type theories. The best known of these is somatotyping, which was proposed by William Sheldon. Sheldon found that an athletic or muscular build (i.e., mesomorphy) is linked to an aggressive, risk-taking personality, which in turn is associated with higher levels of crime. Despite the methodological problems with Sheldon’ s body type theory, many propositions and associations of the perspective hold true in modern studies. The early positive school theories set the stage for most of the other theories we cover in this book because they emphasize use of the scientific method for studying and explaining criminal activity . KEY TER MS atavism 81 biosocial criminology 93 cerebrotonic 92 craniometry 78 determinism 83 ectoderm 90 ectomorphic 91 endoderm 90 endomorphic 91 eugenics 77 feeblemindedness 87 mesoderm 90 mesomorphic 91 minor physical anomalies (MPAs) 84 phrenology 79 physiognomy 80 somatotyping 90 somotonic 92 stigmata 81 viscerotonic 92 Dis cu ssio n Q uestio ns 1 . What characteristics distinguish the positive school from the classical school regarding criminal thought? Which of these schools do you lean toward in your own perspective of crime and why? 2 . Name and describe the various early schools of positivistic theories that existed in the early to mid-1800s (pre-Darwin) as well as the influence they had on later schools of thought regarding criminality . Do you see any validity in these approaches (as modern medical science does)? Why or why not? 3 . What were the significant reasons why these early schools of positivistic theories did not gain much momentum in societal popularity? Does this lack of popularity relate to the neglect of biological perspectives of crime in modern times? 4 . What portion of Lombroso’s theory of criminality do you find least valid? Which do you find most valid? 5 . Most readers have taken the equivalent of an IQ test (e.g., SA T or ACT). Do you believe this score is a fair representation of your knowledge as compared to that of others? Why or why not? Do your feelings reflect the criticisms of experts regarding the use of IQ (e.g., as in feeblemindedness theory) in identifying potential offenders? 6 . In light of scientific findings that show that verbal IQ is a consistent predictor of criminality among virtually all populations and samples, can you provide evidence from your personal experience for why this occurs? 7 . What portion of Sheldon’s body type theory do you find most valid? What do you find least valid? 8 . If you had to give yourself a somatotype (e.g., 3-6-2), what would it be? Explain why your score would be the one you provide, and note whether this would make you likely to be a criminal in Sheldon’ s model. 9 . Provide somatotypes of five of your family members or best friends. Do the somatotypes have any correlation with criminality according to Sheldon’s predictions? Either way , describe your findings. 10 . Do you believe that some of the positive theoretical perspectives presented in this chapter are valid, or do you think they should be dismissed in terms of understanding or predicting crime? Either way , state your case. 11 . What types of policies would you implement if you were in charge, given the theories and findings in this chapter? CHAPT ER F IVE M ODER N B IO SO CIA L PER SPEC TIVES OF C RIM IN AL B EH AV IO R LEA RNIN G O BJEC TIVE S Explain the dif ference between the nature and nurture debate. Summarize the chemicals (e.g., hormones and neurotransmitters) associated with criminal behavior . Identify what biosocial approaches say about the causes of crime. Review what is known about the link between brain injuries and criminal behavior. Identify two policy implications underlying modern biosocial perspectives of criminal behavior . Describe the differences between family , adoption, and twin studies. This chapter discusses the more modern biological studies of the 20th century. We begin with studies from the early 1900s—particularly those that sought to emphasize the influence of biological factors on criminality . Virtually all of these studies have shown a significant biological ef fect in the development of criminal propensities. Then we examine the influence of a variety of physiological factors, including chromosomal mutations, hormones, neurotransmitters, brain trauma, and other dispositional aspects of individuals’ nervous systems. A special emphasis is placed on showing the consistent evidence found for the interaction between physiological and environmental factors (i.e., biosocial factors). This chapter examines a variety of perspectives that deal with interactions between physiological and environmental factors, which is currently the dominant model explaining criminal behavior. First, we discuss the early studies that attempted to emphasize the biological aspects of of fending: family, twin, and adoption studies. All of these studies show that biological influences are more important than social and environmental factors, and most also conclude that when both negative biological and disadvantaged environmental variables are combined, these individuals are by far the most likely to of fend in the future, which fully supports the interaction between nature and nurture factors. Later in this chapter , we examine other physiological factors, such as hormones and neurotransmitters. W e will see that chronic, violent offenders tend to have significantly different levels of hormones and other chemicals in their bodies than do other individuals. Furthermore, we examine brain trauma and activity among violent of fenders, and we see that habitual violent criminals tend to have slower brain wave patterns and lower anxiety levels than other persons. Numerous physiological distinctions can be made between chronic violent offenders and others, but these dif ferences are most evident when physical factors are combined with being raised in poor , disadvantaged environments. NATU RE VER SUS NUR TU RE: S TU DIE S E XA M IN IN G T H E IN FLU EN CE OF G EN ETIC S A ND E N VIR O NM EN T At the same time Freud was developing his perspective of psychological deviance, other researchers were busy testing the influence of heredity versus environment to see which of these two components had the strongest ef fect on predicting criminality. This type of testing produced four waves of research: (1) family studies; (2) twin studies; (3) adoption studies; and, in recent years, (4) studies of identical twins separated at birth. Each of these waves of research contributed to our understanding of how much criminality is inherited from our parents (or other ancestors) versus how much is due to cultural norms, such as family or community . All of the studies have shown that the interaction between these two aspects—genetics and environment— is what causes crime among individuals and groups in society . Fam ily St udie s The most notable family studies were undertaken in the early 1900s by Richard Dugdale in his study of the Jukes family and the previously discussed researcher Henry Goddard, who studied the Kallikak family . 1 These studies were supposed to test the proposition that criminality is more likely to be found in certain families, which would indicate that crime is inherited. Due to the similarity of the results, we focus here on Goddard’s work on the Kallikak family . This study showed that a higher than normal proportion of children from the Kallikak family became criminal. Furthermore, Goddard thought many of the individuals (often children) from the Kallikak family actually looked like criminals, which fit Cesare Lombroso’s theory of stigmata. In fact, Goddard had photographs made of many members of this family to back up these claims. However , follow-up investigations of Goddard’s research have shown that many of these photographs were actually altered to make the subjects appear more sinister or evil (fitting Lombroso’ s stigmata) by altering their facial features—most notably their eyes. 2 Despite the despicable methodological problems with Goddard’s data and subsequent findings, two important conclusions can be made from the family studies done in the early 1900s. The first is that criminality is indeed more common in some families; in fact, no study has ever shown otherwise. However, this tendency cannot be shown to be a product of heredity or genetics. After all, individuals from the same family are also products of a similar environment—often a bad one—so this conclusion from the family studies does little to advance knowledge regarding the relative influence of nature versus nurture in terms of predicting criminality . The second conclusion of family studies was more insightful and interesting. Specifically, they showed that criminality by the mother (or head female caretaker) had a much stronger influence on the future criminality of the children than did the father’s criminality . This is likely due to two factors. The first is that the father is often absent most of the time while the children are being raised. Perhaps more important is that it takes much more for a woman to transgress social norms and become a convicted of fender, which indicates that the mother is highly antisocial; this gives some (albeit limited) credence to the argument that criminality is potentially inherited. Despite this conclusion, it should be apparent from the weaknesses in the methodology of family studies that this finding did not hold much weight in the nature versus nurture debate. Thus, a new wave of research focused on twin studies soon emerged that improved researchers’ ability to measure the simultaneous influence of genetics and environment. Tw in St udie s After family studies, the next wave of tests performed to determine the relative influence on criminality between nature and nurture involved twin studies , the examination of identical twin pairs versus fraternal twin pairs. Identical twins are also known as monozygotic (MZ) twins because they come from a single (hence mono ) egg ( zygote ). Such twins share 100% of their genotype, meaning they are identical in terms of genetic makeup. Keep in mind that everyone shares approximately 99% of the human genetic makeup, leaving about 1% that can vary over the entire species. On the other hand, fraternal twins are typically referred to as dizygotic (DZ) twins because they come from two (hence di ) separate eggs. Such DZ twins share 50% of genes that can vary, which is the same amount that any siblings from the same two parents share. DZ twins can be of dif ferent genders and may look and behave differently , as many readers have probably observed. The goal of the twin studies was to examine the concordance rates between MZ twin pairs and DZ twin pairs regarding delinquency . Concordance is a count based on whether two people (or a twin pair) share a certain trait (or lack of the trait); for our purposes, the trait is criminal offending. Regarding a count of concordance, if one twin is an offender, then we look to see if the other is also an of fender. If that person is, then we say there is concordance given the fact that the first twin was a criminal offender . Also, if neither of the twins is an of fender, that also is concordant because they both lack the trait. However , if one twin is a criminal offender and the other twin of the pair is not an offender, then this would be discordant in the sense that one has a trait that the other does not. Photo 5 .1 Id entic a l tw in s. Sourc e : © iS to ckP hoto .c o m / Im age S ourc e Thus, the twin studies focused on comparing the concordance rates of MZ twin pairs versus those of DZ twin pairs with the assumption that any significant dif ference in concordance could be attributed to the similarity of the genetic makeup of the MZ twins (which is 100%) versus the DZ twins (which is significantly less—that is, 50%). If genetics play a major role in determining the criminality of individuals, then it would be expected that MZ twins would have a significantly higher concordance rate for being criminal offenders than would DZ twins. In these studies, it was assumed that each twin in each MZ or DZ twin pair had been raised in more or less the same environment as the other twin since each pair had been brought up in the same family at the same time. A number of studies were performed in the early and mid-1900s that examined the concordance rates between MZ and DZ twin pairs. These studies clearly showed that identical twins had far higher concordance rates than did fraternal twins; most studies showed twice as much concordance or more for MZ twins—even for serious criminality. 3 However, the studies regarding the comparisons between the twins were strongly criticized for reasons that many readers readily see. Specifically , identical twins, who look almost exactly alike, are typically dressed the same by their parents and treated the same by the public. In addition, they are generally expected to behave the same way. However , this is not true for fraternal twins, who often look dif ferent and often are of different genders. Thus, the foundation for criticism of the twin studies was the valid argument that the higher rate of concordance among MZ twins could have been due to the extremely similar way they were treated or expected to behave by society . Another criticism of the early twin studies had to do with the questionable accuracy of determinations of whether twins were fraternal or identical, which was often done by sight in the early tests. 4 Although these criticisms were seemingly valid, the most recent meta-analysis (i.e., a statistical synthesis of studies focused on the same relationships) examining virtually all of the twin studies done up to the 1990s concluded that the twin studies showed evidence of a significant hereditary basis for criminality. 5 Still, the criticisms of such studies were valid; therefore, in the early to mid-1900s, researchers involved in the nature versus nurture debate attempted to address these valid criticisms by moving on to another methodological approach to examining this debate: adoption studies. Adoptio n St udie s Due to the valid criticisms leveled at twin studies in determining the relative influence of nature (biological) or nurture (environmental), researchers in this area moved on to adoption studies , which examined the predictive influence of the biological parents versus that of the adoptive parents who raised the children from infancy to adulthood. In such studies, the adoptees were typically given up for adoption prior to 6 months of age, meaning that the biological parents had relatively no interaction with their natural children; rather , they were almost completely raised from infancy by the adoptive parents. Perhaps the most notable of the adoption studies was done by Sarnof f Mednick and his colleagues in which they examined male children born in Copenhagen between 1927 and 1941 who had been adopted early in life. 6 In this study and virtually all others that have examined adoptees in this light, by far the highest predictability for future criminality was found for adopted youths who had both a biological parent and an adoptive parent who were convicted criminals. However, the Mednick study also showed that the criminality of biological parents had a far greater predictive ef fect on future criminality of offspring than did the criminality of adoptive parents. Still, the adopted children who were least likely to become criminal had no parent with a criminal background. In light of this last conclusion, these findings support the nature via nurture argument as opposed to the nature versus nurture argument. That is, both biological and environmental factors contribute to the future criminality of youths. The key is determining which matters more (or less) under which set of circumstances and for which types of antisocial and criminal acts. Unfortunately, the researchers who performed these studies focused on the other two groups of youths—those who had either only criminal biological parents or only criminal adoptive parents. Thus, these adoption studies found that the adoptees who had only biological parents who were criminal had a much higher likelihood of becoming criminal compared to the youths who had only adoptive parents who were criminal. Obviously , this finding supports the idea that genetic influence predisposes people toward criminality . However, this methodology was subject to criticism. Perhaps the most notable criticism of adoption studies was that adoption agencies typically incorporated a policy of selective placement in which adoptees were placed with adoptive families similar in terms of demographics and background to their biological parents. Such selective placement could bias the results of adoption studies. However , recent analyses have examined the impact of such bias, concluding that, even after accounting for the influence of selective placement, the findings of the adoption studies still retain some validity . 7 It is possible that children’s biological parents have more influence on their future criminality than the adoptive parents who raise them from infancy to adulthood—but this is not easy to study . Still, the criticism of selective placement was strong enough to encourage a fourth wave of research in the nature versus nurture debate, which became studies on identical twins separated at birth. Tw in s Se para te d a t B ir th Until recently , studies of identical twins separated at birth were virtually impossible to undertake because it was so dif ficult to get a high number of identical twins who had indeed been separated early. But since the early 1990s, twins-separated-at-birth studies have been possible. Readers should keep in mind that, in many of the identical twin pairs studied for these investigations, the individuals did not even know they had a twin. Furthermore, the environments in which they were raised were often extremely different; one twin might be raised by a poor family in an urban environment while the other twin was raised by a middle- to upper-class family in a rural environment. These studies—the most notable having been done at the University of Minnesota— found that the twin pairs often showed extremely similar tendencies for criminality , sometimes more similar than those seen in concordance rates for identical twins raised together. 8 This finding obviously supports the profound influence of genetics and heredity , which is not surprising to most well-read scientists, who now acknowledge the extreme importance of inheritance of physiological and psychological aspects to human behavior . Perhaps more surprising was why separated identical twins, who had never known they had a twin and were often raised in extremely different circumstances, had just as high or even higher concordance rates than identical twins raised together . The leading theory for this phenomenon is that identical twins raised together actually go out of their way to deviate from their natural tendencies to form an identity separate from their identical twin with whom they have spent their entire lives. As for criticisms of this methodology, none have been presented in the scientific literature. Thus, it is somewhat undisputed at this point that the identical-twins-separated-at- birth studies have shown that genetics has a significant impact on human behavior , especially regarding criminal activity. Taking all of the nature versus nurture methodological approaches and subsequent findings together , the best conclusion is that genetics and heredity both have some sort of association with criminality . Environment simply cannot account for all of the consistent results seen in the comparisons between identical twins and fraternal twins, those of identical twins separated at birth, and those of adoptees with criminal biological parents versus those who did not have such parents. Still, readers should be mindful of the emerging fact regarding the importance of the interaction between nature and nurture (better stated as nature via nurture). Perhaps in response to this nature versus nurture debate, a new theoretical perspective was offered in the mid-1900s that merged biological and psychological factors in explaining criminality . Although it leaned more toward the nature side of the debate, critics would use this same perspective to promote the nurture side, so this framework was useful in promoting the interaction between biology and sociological factors. CYT OGEN ETIC ST UDIE S: T H E X YY F A CTO R Beyond the body type theories, another model was proposed in the mid-1900s regarding biological conditions that predispose individuals toward crime: cytogenetic studies . Cytogenetic studies of crime focus on the genetic makeup of individuals, with a specific focus on abnormalities in chromosomal makeup, and specifically chromosomal abnormalities that occur randomly in the population. Many of the chromosomal mutations studied (such as XYY) typically result not from heredity but from random mutations in chromosomal formation. The normal chromosomal makeup for women is XX, which represents an X from the mother and an X from the father . The normal chromosomal makeup for men is XY , which represents an X from the mother and a Y from the father . However, as in many species of animals, there are often genetic mutations, which we see in human beings. Consistent with evolutionary theory , virtually all possible variations of chromosomes possible have been found in the human population, such as XXY, XYY, and many others. W e focus our discussion on the chromosomal mutations that have been most strongly linked to criminality . One of the first chromosomal mutations recognized as a predictor of criminal activity was XYY. In 1965, the first major study showed that this mutation was far more common in a Scottish male population of mental patients than in the general population. 9 Specifically , in the general population, XYY occurs in about 1 of every 1,000 males. The first major study that examined the influence of XYY sampled about 200 men in the mental hospital; one occurrence would have been predicted, assuming what was known about the general population. The study , however, found 13 individuals who were XYY , which suggested that individuals who have mental disorders are more likely to have XYY than those who do not. Males who have XYY have at least 13 times the likelihood (or a 1,300% chance) of having behavioral disorders compared with those who do not have this chromosomal abnormality . Subsequent studies have not been able to dismiss the effect of XYY on criminality, but they have concluded that this mutation is more often linked with property crime than with violent crime. 10 W ould knowing this relationship help in policies regarding crime? Probably not, considering the fact that 90% of the male mental patients were not XYY . Still, this study showed the importance of looking at chromosomal mutations as a predictor of criminal behavior. Such mutations include numerous chromosomal abnormalities, such as XYY , which is a male who is given an extra Y chromosome, making him more “malelike.” These individuals are often very tall but slow in terms of social and intelligence skills. Another type of mutation is XXY, which is otherwise known as Klinefelter ’s syndrome; it results in more feminine males (homosexuality has been linked to this mutation). Many other types of mutations have been observed, but the XYY mutation has been the primary focus of studies, which is largely due to the higher levels of testosterone produced by this chromosomal mutation (see Figure 5.1 ). One study examined the relative criminality and deviance of a group of individuals in each of these groups of chromosomal mutations (see Figure 5.1 ). 1 1 This study found that the higher the level of male hormones produced by the chromosomal mutation, the greater the likelihood that people with the mutation would commit criminal and deviant acts. On the other hand, the higher the level of feminine hormones produced by the chromosomal mutation, the lower the likelihood that the individuals would commit criminal activity . All of these variations in chromosomes show that there is a continuum of femaleness and maleness and that the more malelike the individual is in terms of chromosomes, the more likely they are to commit criminal behavior . The cytogenetic studies showed that somewhat random abnormalities in an individual’s genetic makeup can have a profound influence on her or his level of criminality. Whether or not this can or should be used in policy related to crime is another matter , but the point is that genetics does indeed contribute to an increased likelihood of committing a criminal act. The extent to which male hormones or androgens are increased by the mutation is an important predictor of criminal traits. Description Fig ure 5 .1 H yp oth etic a l Sc atte rg ra m R ela tin g M ascu lin it y /An dro gen L eve l ( D esig nate d b y K ary o ty p e) to D evia nce Sourc e : A nth ony W als h , “ G enetic a nd C yto g enetic In te rs e x A nom alie s: C an T hey H elp U s to U nders ta nd G ender D if f e re nce s in D evia nt B ehavio r? ” In te rn atio nal Jo urn al o f O ffe nder T hera py a nd C om pa ra tiv e C rim in olo gy 3 9 ( 1 995): 1 51–66. C opyrig ht © 1 995 S AG E P ublic a tio ns, In c. R eprin te d b y p erm is sio n o f S AG E Public a tio ns, In c. N ote : T S = T urn er’s s yn dro m e; A IS = a ndro gen in se n sit iv it y s yn dro m e; N F = n orm al fe m ale ; K S = K lin efe lt e r’s s yn dro m e; C AH = c o n genit a l a dre nal h yp e rp la sia ; N M = n orm al m ale ; X YY = J a co b’s ( s u perm ale ) s yn dro m e. H O RM ONES AND N EU RO TR ANSM IT TE R S: C HEM IC ALS T H AT D ET ER MIN E CRIM IN AL B EH AV IO R Various chemicals in the brain and the rest of the body determine how we think, perceive, and react to various stimuli. Hormones, such as testosterone and estrogen, carry chemical signals to the body as they are released from certain glands and structures. Some studies have shown that a relatively excessive amount of testosterone in the body is consistently linked to criminal or aggressive behavior; most studies show a moderate relationship. 12 This relationship is seen even in the early years of life. 13 At the same time, other studies have also shown that hormonal changes in females can increase the chances of criminal behavior . Specifically, studies have shown that a high proportion of the women in prison for violent crimes committed their crimes during their premenstrual cycle at which time women experience a high level of hormones that make them more malelike due to relatively low levels of estrogen compared to progesterone. 14 Of course, this does not necessarily support a true causal explanation, since many women in their premenstrual cycle do not of fend. As stated in Chapter 1 , readers should always keep in mind the three facets of establishing causality , especially the issue of spuriousness. Anyone who doubts the impact of hormones on behavior should examine the scientific literature regarding performance on intelligence tests at dif ferent times of day. Virtually everyone performs better on spatial and mathematical tests early in the day , when people have relatively higher levels of testosterone and other male hormones in their bodies; on the other hand, virtually everyone performs better on verbal tasks in the afternoon or evening, when people have relatively higher levels of estrogen or other female hormones in their systems. 15 Furthermore, studies have shown that individuals who are given shots of androgens (male hormones) before math tests tend to do significantly better on spatial and mathematics tests than they would do otherwise. Scientific studies show that the same is true for people who are given shots of female hormones prior to verbal or reading tests. A really fascinating study found that judicial rulings were influenced by food breaks. 16 This process of dif ferential levels of hormones begins at an early age, specifically at about the fifth week after conception. At that time, the Y chromosome of the male tells the developing fetus that it is a male and stimulates production of higher levels of testosterone. So, even during the first few months of gestation, the genes on the Y chromosome significantly alter the course of genital and thus hormonal development. 17 This level of testosterone alters the genitals of the fetus during gestation as well as prompting later changes in the genital area and produces profound increases in testosterone in the teenage and early adult years. This produces not only physical dif ferences but also huge personality and behavioral alterations. 18 High levels of testosterone and other androgens tend to “masculinize” the brain toward risk-taking behavior , whereas the lower levels typically found in females tend to result in the default feminine model. 19 High levels of testosterone have numerous consequences, such as lowered sensitivity to pain, enhanced seeking of sensory stimulation, and a right hemisphere shift in brain dominance, which has been linked to higher levels of spatial aptitude but lower levels of verbal reasoning and empathy . These consequences have profound implications for criminal activity and are more likely to occur in males than females. 20 Hormones have a profound ef fect on how individuals think and perceive their environments. Much of the influence on a decision to commit a criminal act comes down to cognitive decisions in our 3-pound brains. So, it should not be surprising that hormones play a highly active role in this decision-making process. Nevertheless, hormones are probably secondary compared to levels of neurotransmitters , which are chemicals in the brain and body that help transmit electric signals from one neuron to another. Neurotransmitters can be distinguished from hormones in the sense that hormones carry a signal that is not electric, whereas the signals neurotransmitters carry are indeed electric. Neurotransmitters are chemicals released when a neuron, the basic unit of the nervous system, wants to send an electric message to one or more neighboring neurons. Sending such a message requires the creation of neural pathways, which means that neurotransmitters must be activated in processing the signal. At any given moment, healthy levels of various neurotransmitters are needed to pass messages from one neuron to the next across gaps between them, called synapses. Although there are many types of neurotransmitters, the most studied in relation to criminal activity are dopamine and serotonin . Dopamine is most commonly linked to feeling good. For example, dopamine is the chemical that tells us when we are experiencing good sensations, such as good food, sex, and so on. Most illicit drugs elicit a pleasurable sensation by enhancing the levels of dopamine in our systems. Cocaine and methamphetamine, for example, tell the body to produce more dopamine and inhibit the enzymes that typically mop up the dopamine in our systems after it is used. Photo 5 .2 N euro ns a re th e b asic c e lls in o ur n erv o us s yste m , and th ey c o m munic a te v ia c h em ic a ls c a lle d n euro tr a nsm it te rs th at a id in s e ndin g e le ctr ic m essa ges a cro ss g aps b etw een neuro ns c a lle d s yn apse s. Sourc e : © iS to ckP hoto .c o m / k ts im age Although a number of studies show that low levels of dopamine are linked to high rates of criminality , other studies show no association with—or even a positive link to —criminal behavior . 21 However , the relationship between dopamine and criminal behavior is probably curvilinear , such that both extremely high and extremely low levels of dopamine are associated with deviance. Unfortunately , no conclusion can be made at this point due to the lack of scientific evidence regarding this chemical. On the other hand, a clear conclusion can be made about the other major neurotransmitter that has been implicated in criminal offending: serotonin. Studies have consistently shown that low levels of serotonin are linked with criminal offending. 22 Serotonin is important in virtually all information processing, whether it be learning or emotional; thus, it is vital in most aspects of interacting with the environment. Those who have low levels of serotonin are likely to have problems in everyday communication and life in general. Therefore, it is not surprising that low levels of serotonin are strongly linked to criminal activity . BRAIN IN JU RIES Another area of physiological problems associated with criminal activity is that of trauma to the brain. As mentioned before, the brain weighs only 3 pounds, but it has a strong hand in just about every human decision, including every criminal act an individual commits, so any problems related to this structure have profound implications regarding behavior , especially deviance and criminal activity . Studies have consistently shown that damage to any part of the brain increases the risk of crime by that individual in the future. However , trauma to certain portions of the brain tends to have more serious consequences than injury to other areas. Specifically, damage to the frontal or temporal lobes (particularly those on the left side) appears to have the most consistent associations with criminal of fending. 23 These findings make sense primarily because the frontal lobes (which include the prefrontal cortex) are the areas of the brain where the realm of higher-level problem solving and “executive” functioning takes place. 24 Thus, the frontal lobes, especially on the left side, process what we are thinking and inhibit us from doing what we are emotionally charged to do. Thus, any moral reasoning relies on this executive area of the brain because it is the region that considers long-term consequences. 25 If people suf fer damage to their frontal lobes, they will be far more inclined to act on their emotional urges because they are not receiving any logical inhibitions from this specialized region. In a similar vein, the temporal lobe region is highly related to memory and emotion. To clarify , the temporal lobes cover and communicate almost directly with certain structures of our brain’ s limbic systems. Certain limbic structures govern our memories (the hippocampus) and emotions (the amygdala). Any damage to the temporal lobe, which is generally located above the ear , is likely to damage these structures or the effective communication of these structures to other portions of the brain. Therefore, it is understandable why trauma to the temporal region of the brain is linked to future criminality . Photo 5 .3 H ark in g b ack to th e 1 9th c e ntu ry , w he n p ostm orte m exa m in atio ns o f th e b ra in s o f c rim in als w ere a fr e quent phenom enon, r e se arc h ers d is se cte d th e b ra in o f s e ria l k ille r Jo hn W ayn e G acy a fte r h is e xe cu tio n. T he a tte m pt to lo ca te a n o rg anic e xp la natio n fo r h is m onstr o us b ehavio r w as unsu cce ssfu l. Sourc e : © A P P hoto /M . S pence r G re en C ASE STUDY CHARLES WHIT M AN Charles Whitman’ s shooting spree is legendary and notorious for many reasons. He killed 15 people and injured 28 others from a landmark university tower at the University of T exas at Austin (UT Austin; the UT flagship campus). But what is almost more fascinating is his life story up until that fateful day. Whitman was, by most accounts, a great person and a good soldier . He was one of the youngest Eagle Scouts ever to earn the honor. He graduated near the top of his class in high school and then went on to become a stellar member of the U.S. Marine Corps, earning the rating of sharpshooter . He used this skill when he went on his shooting rampage on August 1, 1966. It should be noted that the day before, he killed his wife and mother and left some letters (which will come up later). Then he planned out his attack on the university for the following day. Photo 5 .4 C harle s W hit m an s h ot 4 3 p eople fr o m th e univ e rs it y c lo ck to w er a t U niv e rs it y o f T e xa s a t A ustin ( U T Au stin ), k illin g 1 5. Sourc e : © iS to ckP hoto .c o m / A ustin M ir a ge The day after Whitman killed his wife and mother , he proceeded to the main tower at UT Austin, killed the receptionist, ascended the tower , and waited for classes to break; he then opened fire on the crowd of students. It is notable that he had taken with him a variety of materials that imply he was in it for the long haul. These items included toilet paper, spray deodorant, water canteens, gasoline, rope, and binoculars as well as a variety of weapons, such as a machete, a hatchet, a .357 Magnum revolver , a 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun, two rifles (one with a telescopic sight), 700 rounds of ammunition, and other weapons. Whitman was shooting people on the run and in places only a trained sharpshooter could hit. He shot a pregnant woman, who later gave birth to a stillborn baby. He also shot a person crossing a street 500 yards away . This is the type of shot glorified in Full Metal Jacket , a Stanley Kubrick film that examined the Marine boot camps of the late 1960s. There is no doubt that Whitman was an expert sharpshooter and that the Marine Corps trained him well. Unfortunately, in this case his training was used against innocent targets. Whitman continued his mass killing for a couple of hours until several police officers were able to find a way through ground tunnels and then up to the top of the tower , where they shot and killed Whitman. But why did he do it? The best guess we have, which directly relates to this chapter, began with one of his last letters. He wrote, “After my death, I wish an autopsy on me to be performed to see if there is any mental disorder .” An autopsy was performed, and as Whitman sort of predicted, he did not simply have a mental disorder but a large brain tumor (about the size of a golf ball). As we examine how vulnerable our brain functioning can be to trauma, imagine the likely effects of a large tumor on thinking and processing skills. Thin k A bout It 1 . Do you believe Whitman was insane? Give your reasons why you believe so or not. 2 . Given how much planning went into his attack, how much of an ef fect do you believe his tumor had on him at the time of the attack? 3 . Do you see any similarities between the Whitman case and the case of Stephen Paddock, a 64-year-old man who opened fire at a country concert outside the Mandalay Bay Hotel on the Las Vegas Strip, killing 60 people and wounding over 400 others? Sources: Ronald M. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes, Mass Murders in the United States (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000); Jo Durden Smith, 100 Most Infamous Criminals (New York: MetroBooks, 2003). CEN TR AL A ND A UTO NO M IC N ER VO US S YSTE M A CTIVI TY The brain is a key player in two types of neurological systems that have been linked to criminal activity . The first is the central nervous system (CNS) , which involves our brains and spinal columns and governs our voluntary motor activities. For example, the fact that you are reading this sentence means you are in control of this brain- processing activity . Empirical studies of the influence of CNS functioning on criminality have traditionally focused on brain wave patterns with most using electroencephalograms (EEGs). Although EEGs do not do a good job of describing which areas of the brain are active or inactive, they do reveal how much the brain as an entire organ is performing at certain times. Studies have compared brain wave patterns of known chronic of fenders (e.g., psychopaths, repeat violent offenders) to those of “normal” people (i.e., those who have never been charged with a crime). 26 These studies consistently show that the brain wave patterns of chronic of fenders are abnormal compared to those of the normal population with most studies showing slower brain wave patterns in psychopaths. 27 Four types of brain wave patterns are found, from slowest to fastest: delta, theta, alpha, and beta. 28 Delta waves are often seen when people sleep, whereas theta waves are typically observed in lower levels of wakefulness, such as drowsiness. Alpha waves (which tend to be divided into slow and fast wave patterns, as are beta waves) are usually related to a more relaxed wakefulness, and beta waves are observed with high levels of wakefulness, such as in times of extreme alertness and particularly in times of excited activity . The studies that have compared brain wave patterns among chronic of fenders and “normals” have shown significant differences. Psychopaths tend to have more activity in the theta (and sometimes slow alpha) patterns, whereas normals tend to show more activity in the fast alpha or beta waves. These consistent findings reveal that the cortical arousal of chronic offenders tends to be significantly slower than that of people who do not typically commit crimes. Thus, it seems as if chronic of fenders typically do not have the mental functioning that would dispose them toward accurate assessments regarding the consequences of committing criminal behavior . The second area of the nervous system that has been most linked to criminal behavior is the autonomic nervous system (ANS) , which is primarily responsible for involuntary motor activities, such as heart rate, dilation of pupils, and electric conductivity in the skin. This type of physiological activity is measured by polygraph measures, or lie detector tests. Such measures capitalize on the inability of individuals to control physiological responses to anxiety, which occurs in most normal persons when they lie, especially regarding illegal behavior . However, such measures are not infallible because the individuals most at risk of being serious, violent offenders are the most likely to pass such tests even when they are lying (see Figure 5.2 ). Description Fig ure 5 .2 C entr a l N erv o us Sy ste m a nd A uto nom ic N erv o us Sy ste m Sourc e : B ob G arre tt, B ra in a nd B ehavio r: A n In tr o ductio n to B io lo gic a l P sych o lo gy . C opyrig ht © S AG E P ublic a tio ns, In c. Consistent with the findings regarding CNS arousal levels, studies have consistently shown that individuals who have significantly low levels of ANS functioning are far more likely to commit criminal acts. 2 9 For example, studies consistently show that chronic violent of fenders tend to have much slower resting heartbeats than normal people; a number of studies estimate this dif ference to be as much as 10 beats per minute slower for the offenders. 30 This is a highly significant gap that cannot be explained away by alternative theories—for example, the explanation that of fenders are just less excited in laboratory tests. Furthermore, people who have such low levels of ANS arousal tend to experience what is known in the psychological literature as stimulus hunger . Stimulus hunger means that individuals with such a low level of ANS arousal may constantly seek out experiences and stimuli that are risky and thus often illegal. Readers may recall children they have known who can never seem to get enough attention, with some even seeming to enjoy being spanked or other forms of harsh punishment. In addition, people with a low level of ANS arousal may feel no anxiety about punishment, even corporal punishment, and thus may not adequately learn right from wrong through normal forms of discipline. This is perhaps one of the reasons why children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have a higher likelihood of becoming criminals than their peers. Because people who are accurately diagnosed with ADHD have a neurological abnormality—a significantly low functioning ANS level of arousal—doctors prescribe stimulants (e.g., Ritalin) for such youths. It may seem counterintuitive to prescribe a hyperactive person a stimulant; however, the medication boosts the individual’s ANS functioning to a normal level of arousal. This makes such individuals experience a healthy level of anxiety, which they would not normally experience from wrongdoing. Assuming that the medication is properly prescribed and at the correct dosage, children who are treated tend to become more attuned to the discipline they face if they engage in rule violation. Children who do not fear punishment—in fact, some of them do not feel anxiety even when being physically punished (e.g., spanking)—are likely to have lower-than- average levels of ANS functioning. Such individuals are likely to become chronic offenders if this disorder is not addressed because they will not respond to discipline or consider the long-term consequences of their risky behavior . If people don’t fear punishment or negative consequences from their behavior, they may be more likely to engage in selfish, greedy behavior. Thus, it is important to address this issue as soon as possible when it becomes evident. On the other hand, children will be children, and ADHD and other disorders have been overly diagnosed in recent years. A well- trained physician should investigate thoroughly to decide whether an individual has such a low level of ANS functioning that medication or therapy is required to curb deviant behavior. Individuals who have significantly lower ANS arousal are likely to pass lie detector tests because they feel virtually no or little anxiety when they lie; many of them lie all the time. Thus, it is ironic, but the very people whom lie-detecting measures are meant to capture are the most likely to pass such tests, which is probably why they are typically not allowed to be used in court. Only through medication or cognitive behavioral therapy can such individuals learn to consider the long-term consequences of the decisions they make regarding their behavior . Individuals with low levels of ANS functioning are not always destined to become chronic offenders. Some evidence has shown that people with low ANS arousal often become successful corporate executives, decorated military soldiers, world-champion athletes, and high-level politicians. Most of these occupations require people who constantly seek out exciting, risky behaviors, and others require constant and convincing forms of lying to others. So, there are many legal outlets and productive ways for people with low levels of ANS functioning to use their natural tendencies. These individuals could perhaps be steered toward such occupations and opportunities when they present themselves. This is clearly a better option than committing antisocial acts against others in society . Low levels of cortical arousal in both the CNS and ANS are clearly linked to a predisposition toward criminal activity. However, modern medical research and societal opportunities exist to help such individuals divert their tendencies toward more prosocial outlets. BIO SOC IA L A PPR OACHES T O E XPLA IN IN G C RIM IN AL B EH AVI OR Perhaps the most important and most recent perspective of how criminality is formed is that of biosocial approaches to explaining crime. Specifically , if there is any conclusion that can be made regarding the previous theories and research in this chapter, it is that both genetics and environment influence behavior , particularly the interaction between the two. Even the most fundamental aspects of life can be explained by these two factors. For example, if we look at the height of individuals, we can predict with a great amount of accuracy how tall a person will be by looking at the individual’s parents and other ancestors because much of height is determined by a person’s genotype. However, even for something as physiological as height, the environment plays a large role. As many readers will observe, individuals raised in poor , underdeveloped areas are shorter than children raised in more developed areas. However , individuals who descend from parents and relatives in these underdeveloped areas but are raised in more developed areas tend to be just as tall (if not taller) as children born in more developed areas. This is largely due to diet, which obviously is an environmental factor. In other words, our genotype provides a certain range or window that determines the height of an individual based on ancestral factors. But the extent to which individuals grow to the maximum or minimum, or somewhere in between, largely depends on what occurs in the environment as they develop. This is why biologists make a distinction between genotype, which is directly due to genetics, and phenotype , which is a manifestation of genetics interacting with the environment. The same type of biosocial effect is seen for criminal behavior . Furthermore, over the past decades, a number of empirical investigations have examined the extent to which physiological variables interact with environmental variables, and the findings of these studies have shown consistent predictions regarding criminality. Such studies have been more accurate than those that rely on either physiological and genetic variables or environmental factors separately . For example, findings from a cohort study in Philadelphia, that the authors of this text worked on together soon after their graduate education was complete, showed that individuals who had low birth weights were more likely to commit crime, but that was true primarily if they were raised in a lower-income family or a family with a weak social structure. 31 Those raised in a relatively high-income household or a strong family structure were unlikely to become criminals. It was the coupling of both a physiological deficiency (i.e., low birth weight) and an environmental deficit (i.e., weak family structure or income) that had a profound ef fect on propensity for criminal behavior. In addition, recent studies have shown that when incarcerated juveniles were assigned to diets with limited levels of simple carbohydrates (e.g., sugars), their reported levels of violations during incarceration declined by almost half (45%). 32 Furthermore, other studies have reported that various food additives and dyes, such as those commonly found in processed foods, can also have a significant influence on criminal behavior . Thus, the old saying “you are what you eat” appears to have some scientific weight behind it—at least regarding criminal behavior . Additional studies have found that high levels of certain toxins, particularly lead and manganese, can have profound effects on behavior, including criminality . Recent studies have found a consistent, strong ef fect of high lead levels in predicting criminal behavior. Unfortunately , medical studies have also found many subtle sources of high lead levels, such as the fake jewelry many children wear as toys. Also unfortunate is that the individuals who are most vulnerable to high levels of lead (like virtually every other toxin) are children, yet they are the most likely to be exposed. Even more unfortunate is that the populations most susceptible to biosocial interactions (e.g., poor, urban) are most likely to experience high levels of lead, largely due to old paint, which often contains lead, and other household products that contain dangerous toxins. 33 Consistently , other studies have shown that prenatal and perinatal problems alone do not predict violence well. However , when such perinatal problems are considered along with environmental deficits, such as weak family structure, this biosocial relationship often predicts violent rather than property crime. 34 Other studies have shown the ef fects on criminality of a biosocial interaction between the impact of physiological factors within the first minute of life, called Apgar scores, and environmental factors, including exposure to nicotine. 35 Additional studies have also found that the interaction between maternal cigarette smoking and the father ’s absence from the household is associated with criminal behavior , especially early in life, which is one of the biggest predictors of chronic offending in the future. 36 One of the most revealing studies showed that although only 4% of a sample of 4,269 individuals had both birth complications and maternal rejection, this relatively small group of people accounted for more than 18% of the total violent crimes committed by the whole sample. 37 T o quote a recent review of literature, Adrian Raine stated, “Almost wherever you go in the world, you find the same ef fect. The combination of birth complications and adverse home environments appears to be a useful biosocial key that can open the lock on the causes of violence.” Therefore, studies have shown that the interaction between biological factors and environmental deficiencies has a highly consistent effect on future criminality . Photo 5 .5 Y oung c h ild re n a re p artic u la rly v u ln era ble w he n exp ose d to d angero us to xin s. Sourc e : © iS to ckP hoto .c o m / p hoto sp ow er POL IC Y IM PL IC ATIO NS The theories in this chapter have much to of fer to policy implications; a few of the primary interventions are discussed here. First, there should be universal, funded preschool for all children. This early life stage is important not only for developing academic skills but also for fostering healthy social and disciplinary skills, which children who do not attend preschool often fail to develop. 38 In addition, there should be funded mental health and drug counseling for all young children and adolescents who exhibit symptoms of mental disorders or drug problems. 39 There should also be universal funding for health care for all expectant mothers, especially those who have risk factors (e.g., poverty , inner-city residence). The research based on early family/parent training approaches to reducing delinquency and crime is strong. 40 Perhaps most important, there should be far more thorough examinations of children’ s physiological makeup in terms of hormones, neurotransmitters, brain formation and functioning, and genetic design so that earlier interventions can take place. It has been shown empirically that the earlier interventions take place, the better the outcomes. 41 A review of the extant literature, hereafter referred to as the Maryland Report (because all key authors of the report were professors at the University of Maryland), emphasized the importance of identifying and quickly treating any head and bodily trauma early in development among infants and toddlers, concluding that some of the most consistently supported early intervention programs for such physiological problems are those that involve weekly infant home visitation, typically by nurses or neonatal experts. 42 C O NCLU SI ON This chapter has examined a large range of explanations of criminal behavior that place most of the weight on biological and psychological factors, which are typically intertwined. These types of explanations were primarily popular in the early years of the development of criminology as a science, but they have also been shown in recent years to still be relevant for understanding criminal behavior . This chapter examined the influence of genetics and environment in family studies, twin studies, adoption studies, and studies of identical twins separated at birth. These studies have shown the consistent influence of inheritance and genetics in increasing the likelihood of criminal activity. This is supported by the influence of hormones (e.g., testosterone) in human behavior as well as the influence of variations in chromosomal mutations (e.g., XYY). Recent research has supported both of these theories in showing that people with high levels of male androgens are far more likely to commit crimes than those who do not have high levels of these hormones. The link between brain trauma and crime was also discussed, emphasizing the consistent association between damage to the left or frontal parts of the brain. W e also examined theories regarding variations in levels of CNS and ANS functioning; nearly all empirical studies have shown that low levels of functioning of these systems have links to criminality. Finally, we explored the extent to which the interaction between physiological factors and environmental variables contributes to the most consistent prediction of criminal of fending. It is interesting that the very theories that were key in the early years of the development of criminology as a science are now once again providing support in studies for being primary influences on criminal behavior. Despite the neglect that biosocial models of crime receive in terms of both recognition and policy implications, there is no doubt that this area is crucial if we hope to advance our understanding and create more ef ficient policies regarding criminal behavior. Criminologists need to pay attention to the importance of the brain in decision-making. W e all have brains, each about 3 pounds in weight, that are strongly influential in determining the choices we make. Criminologists must acknowledge the influence of biological or physiological factors that influence this vital organ, or the discipline will be behind the curve in terms of understanding why people commit (or do not commit) criminal of fenses. Chapte r Su mmary Early studies that examined the influence of biology focused on case studies of certain families. These studies showed that criminality was indeed clustered among certain families, but such studies did not separate biology from environment. The next stage of studies examined the concordance rates of identical twins versus nonidentical twins. These studies led to the conclusion that genetic makeup was very important, but critics called these conclusions into question. The following stage of research examined adoptees to determine which parents (biological or adoptive) had more influence in their future criminal behavior. These studies revealed that biological parents (whom the adoptees never knew) had far more influence than the adoptive parents who raised them. However , there were criticisms of these studies, so the findings were questioned. The final stage of the biology versus environment debate was that of identical twins separated at birth as compared to identical twins raised together. These studies showed that the twins separated at birth were just as similar , if not more so, than the twins reared together . There are few criticisms of this method of study. Thus, it appears that all four waves of study are consistent in showing that biological influences are vitally important in explaining the criminality of individuals. This chapter also examined chromosomal mutations, such as the XYY mutation, which has consistently shown associations with criminality . Much, if not most, of this link is believed to be due to the increased male androgens (e.g., testosterone) produced by individuals who have the XYY chromosomal mutation. Studies have consistently shown that individuals with higher levels of testosterone and other androgens are more disposed toward criminality; for example, normal males are far more likely than normal females to engage in violent crimes, but it remains to be seen how much of this can be attributable simply to testosterone. This chapter reviewed findings from studies that show that people with abnormal levels of certain neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, are far more likely to engage in crime than those who have normal levels of these chemicals in their brains or bodies. Studies show that criminality is more likely among individuals who have experienced brain trauma or have lower levels of brain functioning, especially in certain regions of the brain, such as the frontal and temporal lobes, which are the regions that largely govern higher-level, problem- solving functions. This chapter also reviewed the dispositions of individuals regarding two aspects of the nervous system, specifically the CNS and ANS. Those who have significantly slower brain waves and lower anxiety levels are far more likely to commit crimes. KEY TER MS adoption studies 102 autonomic nervous system (ANS) 1 11 central nervous system (CNS) 1 11 concordance rates 101 cytogenetic studies 104 dizygotic (DZ) twins 101 dopamine 108 family studies 100 frontal lobes 109 monozygotic (MZ) twins 101 neurotransmitters 107 phenotype 114 selective placement 103 serotonin 108 temporal lobes 109 twin studies 101 twins-separated-at-birth studies 103 Dis cu ssio n Q uestio ns 1 . Is there any validity to family studies in determining the role of genetics in criminal behavior? Explain why or why not. 2 . Explain the rationale of studies that compare the concordance rates of identical twins and fraternal twins who are raised together . What do most of these studies show regarding the influence of genetics on criminal behavior? What are the criticisms of these studies? 3 . Explain the rationale of studies that examine the biological and adoptive parents of adopted children. What do most of these studies show regarding the influence of genetics on criminal behavior? What are the criticisms of these studies? 4 . What are the general findings in identical twins separated at birth? What implications do these findings have for the importance of genetics or heritability regarding criminal behavior? Can you find a criticism for such findings? 5 . Explain what cytogenetic disorders are, and describe the related disorder most linked to criminal behavior. What characteristics of this type of disorder seem to drive the higher propensity for criminal behavior? 6 . What types of hormones have been shown by scientific studies to be linked to criminal activity? Give specific examples that show this link to be true. 7 . Explain what neurotransmitters are, and describe which neurotransmitters are key in predicting criminal offending. Provide support from previous scientific studies. 8 . Which areas of the brain, given trauma, have shown the greatest vulnerability regarding criminal of fending? Does the lack of healthy functioning in these areas make sense? Why? 9 . How do brain wave patterns differ between chronic, violent criminals and “normal” people? Does this make sense in biosocial models of criminality? 10 . How does the ANS differ between chronic, violent criminals and “normal” people? Does this make sense in biosocial models of criminality? 11 . What types of policy implications would you support based on the information provided by empirical studies reviewed in this chapter? D escrip tio ns o f Im ag es a n d F ig ure s Back to Figure The horizontal axis is labeled masculinity or androgen level and ranges from low to high. The vertical axis is labeled deviance and ranges from low to high. The data from the scattergram are tabulated below . Condition Karyotype Masculinity or androgen level Deviance A I S X Y Very low Very low T S X O Very low Very low N F X X Low Low C A H X X Moderate Low N M X Y High Moderate K S X X Y Moderate High No data X Y Y Very high Very high Back to Figure The data from the organization chart are as follows: The nervous system Central Brain Spinal Cord Peripheral Somatic Autonomic Sympathetic Parasympathetic An accompanying illustration shows the posterior view of the human body. The central nervous system comprises the brain and the spinal cord. The nerves of peripheral nervous system extend from the spinal cord. The functions of the sympathetic nervous system are as follows: Dilates pupils Inhibits salivation Increases heart rate Dilates airways Inhibits digestive system Constricts peripheral blood vessels Activates sweat glands Stimulates adrenal glands to secrete epinephrine and norepinephrine Contracts rectum Relaxes bladder Stimulates orgasm The functions of the peripheral nervous system are as follows: Constricts pupils Stimulates salivation Slows heart rate Constricts airways Stimulates digestive system, which includes the liver, stomach, pancreas, and intestines Relaxes rectum in elimination Contracts bladder Stimulates genital arousal
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlinesOrder Paper Now