Introduction
Prevalence of crime is a threat to any ordered society. Crime prevention and crime control require a wide range of response, which includes developing a comprehensive understanding of why people commit crime. Numerous criminological theories have emerged over the decades that explain in parts the taxonomy of criminal behavior. The earliest theories revolved around the Classical and the Positivist approach. The Classical approach theorized that “crime was a rational choice based on the pleasures of an illegal act outweighing its pains” (Cullen and Agnew 8). The Positivist school argued that crime was committed by people who had not biologically ‘evolved’ enough. Yet another early theory posited that criminals had specific biological and psychological traits which could be identified. These early theories were largely discredited by most experts and the Chicago school of social disorganization came into vogue. According to this theory, crime occurs because of breakdown of social cohesion in neighborhoods. However recent advances in medical sciences have led to a resurgence of criminal theories based on biological and psychological factors in a social background. The theory, also known as the Sociobiology or Psychobiologyis the focus of this essay which also dwells on some recommended responses for the Criminal Justice System in dealing with criminal behavior.
Main body
The Socio-biological theory basically posits that biological and genetic factors play an important role in the way humans perceive the environment and learn coping mechanisms to deal with that environment. This interrelation of innate biological factors, together with the environment gives rise to human behavioral patterns that includes criminal behavior also. Socio-biologists argue that no two people are born with the same brain, brain chemistry and a thinking process that is equal. Thus, the response of two individuals to the same environmental condition would differ. Walsh et al. reports “that individual biochemistry has a powerful influence on human behavior” (838). Researchers have found that deficiencies of Vitamin B3, B6 and C can cause antisocial behavior. Other researchers have found that diets high in sugar lead to hyperactivity and attention span disorders. When the diet of previously uncontrollable hyperactive children was regulated, it led to a dramatic decrease in disruptive behavior. Low blood sugar levels or Hypoglycemia has been known to cause anxiety, headaches, confusion, depression, and general irritability. Reed reports that “a significant and large proportion of our criminal offenders are suffering from malnutrition induced by excessive consumption of junk processed food” (5).
Allergies caused due to different types of foods, foods added with chemicals and chemical pollution of environment have been known to produce a wide range of antisocial behavior. Behavioral psychologists through neurobiological studies have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to “incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development” (Hanson 19). Damage to the prefrontal cortex of the human brain either through injury or due to other physiological factors produces changes in human behavior over which ‘free will’ may have very little control. Researchers have found links between abnormal brain electrical patterns as recorded on Electro Encephalograms (EEGs) and the number of such people incarcerated in jails and prisons. Juveniles with abnormal EEGs have shown a range of response which includes poor impulse control, tantrums, disruptive behavior, hostility and poor social adaptation. Added to such a wide range of biological factors if one were to add the social factors, it is not surprising that crime is so common.
However, biological factors described above in stable psychological and social environments have proved to be controllable and have not necessarily led to criminal behavior. It is obvious that a trigger of adverse psychological and social causes is relevant to explain the spurt in criminality. A typical example would be the life in the Bronx. A child brought up in average low income neighborhood of Bronx faces a host of socio-psychological factors. Poor incomes lead to poor diets and junk food as the main staple. This dietary imbalance then could manifest in general irritation and disruptive behavior as has already been stated. Since juveniles have poor judgment performances, influence of older members of the family or the neighbors who could be criminals themselves could significantly alter their life’s choices. In some Bronx neighborhoods, not belonging to a street gang could possible lead to existential danger. Such an environment creates a fear psychosis where the individuals live in mortal fear of either the criminals or the police. Poor socio-economic conditions also set the stage for broken homes, frustrated abusive parents and a breakdown of normal societal behavior. If one adds to this cauldron, individuals with brain injuries, brain damage or those with behavior altered adversely due to biochemical causes coupled with possible environmental pollution that affects the functioning of the brain, an explosion of deviant behavior and rise in criminality is a guaranteed outcome. In the above example, it becomes evident that not only does sociobiology become relevant but also, other social theories of criminology. That is not to say that the classical approach is not a valid theory. Old fashioned greed and man’s predilection to break rules and ‘get rich quick’ by whatever means also holds as much relevance as the wide ranging theories described above.
With such a backdrop, the Criminal Justice system has to develop a viable structure to address the entire tapestry and range of human behavior where some acts are with the full volition of the individual, others beyond their control and some resulting from the state’s inability to provide the requisite avenues for self realization. The American criminal justice system based on liberalism, strong belief in the ‘rule of law’ and the independence of thought and action led to two main approaches for sentencing; namely the indeterminate and the determinate policies of sentencing.
The indeterminate sentencing policy that believed that humans can be transformed and that any sentencing must view the special circumstances of every case was discarded as ‘too soft’ by all 50 States who have shown preference for determinate or mandatory sentencing laws as the way ahead. “Mandatory sentences are based on two goals—deterrence and incapacitation” (Parent, Dunworth and McDonald 1). However, statistics have proven otherwise, Europe which follows the softer indeterminate approach has a lower rate of incarceration per 100,000 people than the US. Since the determinate or the mandatory policy of sentencing despite its widespread usage in the United States for over two decades has not helped reduce crime, a fresh look at the sentencing policies needs to be taken. In case of the younger adults and teenagers, “early interventions to divert individuals from offending have been found to be one of the most effective types of intervention overall” (Rubin, Rabinovich and Hallsworth 11). The concept of ‘Restorative Justice’ is gaining ground in Europe. In this approach, the offender, the victim, their families, the community and the police, all are involved in the rehabilitative process. This method has been found to reduce repeat offences and has helped bring a number of criminals back into the mainstream society. Improving the health of disadvantaged children and providing social and economic stability to such families would help in reduce crime. Concepts such as situational intervention also help bring down crime. The police, in this case, not only carry out the routine patrols, but also look at community protection holistically through measures such as providing better street lighting in the neighborhood during hours of darkness. Ensuring adequate number of taxis at night helps prevent ‘street corner’ muggings.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be summarized that the socio-biological theory as also the other social theories of criminology holds equal relevance. These theories cannot be divorced from the psychological and socio-economic factors that act as catalysts. Hence a criminal justice system has to view at the entire issue holistically. For the policy makers, a return to the indeterminate sentencing policy with some variations offers the best solution for reducing crimes in the U.S. The Minnesota model of ‘presumptive’ sentencing in which judges can impose a sentence within the range or deviate from the recommended stretch (Hayes 21) is a viable option. Increasing psychological counseling sessions as well as psychiatric intervention are also required for which adequate funding would be required by both the federal and state authorities. These are some of the options for a suitable Way Ahead for the U.S. Criminal Justice System.
Works Cited
Cullen, Francis T. and Robert Agnew. Criminological Theory Past to Present Essential Readings 3rd edition. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company, 2006.
Hanson, Michael J. “Towards a New Assumption in Law and Ethics.” The Humanist 2006: 18-21.
Hayes, Sean. “The End Of Determinate Sentencing:How California’s Prison Problem Can Be Solved With QuickFixes and A Long Term Commission.” 2006. Web.
Parent, Dale, et al. “Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice:Mandatory Sentencing.” 1997. National Institute of Justice.
Reed, Barbara J. “Municipal Court of Cuyahoga.” 1977. Orthomolecular Psychiatry, Vol 6, No. 1, 1977, Pp. 2-7. 16. 2009
Rubin, Jennifer, Lila Rabinovich and Michael and Nason, Edward Hallsworth. “Intervention to Redice Antisocial Behaviour and Crime.” 2006. RAND Europe. Web.
Walsh, William J., Laura B. Glab and Mary L. Haakenson. “Reduced Violent Behavior Following Biochemical Therapy.” 2004. Elsevier. Web.