The Biosocial Theory: Key Aspects Research Paper

Introduction

Several theories have been developed to explain why people become antisocial or turn to crime. The theories provide very distinct reasons on why people develop some tendencies with others focusing on environmental factors, parental nurturing, physical traits, and peer influence among other issues. The general premise for most of these theories is that social factors have a great influence in the development of antisocial and criminal traits. However, focusing on social factors without considering scientific reasoning has failed most of the theories. Consequently, this scenario has led to the emergence of several theories, which try to discredit the existing ones, but they have equally failed, and thus biosocial theory takes precedence. This theory seeks to include a collection of variables such as genetics, neuropsychological factors, evolutionary, and environmental factors in an effort to describe the causes of crime and antisocial behaviors. This aspect is a departure from the previous doctrines that have generally focused on single variables. This paper gives an overview of the concept and a critique of the theory by considering its strengths and weaknesses.

Literature Review

The biosocial theory incorporates interdisciplinary information to a solitary and rational understanding of the causes of crime and antisocial behaviors. Its unique approach has made most criminologists consider it as a precarious and harsh theory to the field of criminology. For instance, criminologists that approach the study through social concepts refute any arguments that biology can influence human traits. Nonetheless, the sociologists’ position is unwarranted as they barely have information on biology, not to mention genetics. Therefore, any disapproval by sociologists against the biosocial theory comes out as ignorance. Despite this opposition, there is a need for respite for in the recent past, criminologists have conducted empirical researches in connection with the biosocial theory. These researches have incorporated both theoretical arguments as well as quantitative facts with respect to biosocial criminology. The subsequent discussion will consider some articles that merge theoretical and empirical arguments.

Genetics and Crime

Biosocial criminologists have found some connection between genetics and crime. However, these findings have earned a great opposition from the mainstream researchers who argue that if such findings can be tolerated, then it can lead to the emergence of other eugenic groups. For instance, should genetic studies influence the decisions made by charges when determining the criminality of a defendant, and thus convict those found with genetic characteristics related to the crime? Nonetheless, genetics do not determine who is a criminal, but rather the possibilities of one being a criminal.

Biosocial criminologists employ two techniques to determine the link between genetics and crime, viz. twin samples and molecular genetic association study models. In the twin sample technique, the phenotypic variance is classified into heritability element, mutual environmental element, and unshared environmental factors. Heritability elements focus on phenotypes that are affected by genetic components. Mutual environment elements refer to the non-genetic factors that delineate twins from one another. These models of comparing genetics and crime are opposed by most social scientists despite behavioral genetic studies providing some of the most reliable evidence with respect to environmental impact s on delinquent and criminal tendencies. In the mainstream theories, the impact of genes on criminal tendencies is zero; hence, any empirical comparison between one’s surrounding and antisocial characteristics is considered bogus and in particular, when genetic study designs are incorporated.

In Genetic and Environmental Overlap between Low Self-Control and Delinquency, Boisvert et al. show how low self-control is a good indicator of antisocial as well as criminal traits.¹ The authors used twin samples drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Health to check the effect between low-control to individual and the trait’s link to kinship. The outcomes of the study were remarkable. It revealed that low self-control and delinquent tendencies are subject to genetics as non-shared environmental elements, whilst mutual environmental components have little influence.² Furthermore, the study showed that the co-variation that existed between antisocial behaviors and delinquent traits was triggered by the comparable genetic and distinct surrounding factors existing on phenotypes of the twin samples.³

The authors also considered theoretical arguments by two scholars, viz. Gottfredson and Hirschi. The two scholars focus on self-control coupled with how people have the capability to avoid delinquent acts. Gottfredson and Hirschi note that self-control is molded in early childhood, and thus parental nurturing plays a big role in determining the level of a child’s self-control.⁴ Apart from the environmental influences, the authors also indicated that genetics has a significant impact on self-control. For instance, the article mentions that recent studies have shown that 74% of antisocial behavior between twins was stirred by genetic factors.

Wright and Beaver further emphasize the notion in their article, Do Parents Matter in Creating Self-Control in their Children: A Genetically Informed Test of GottFredson and Hirschi’s Theory of Low Self-Control. The authors agree with the argument that parents play a critical role in shaping the children’s self-control, and thus it is wrong for Gottfredson and Hirsch to attribute it environmental factors without considering the influence of genetics.⁵ Wright and Beaver argue that recent studies have indicated that attention-deficit hyperactivity disorders (ADHD) are inheritable. By using twin sample, the authors affirmed genetics influences have a stronger effect as compared to parental nurturing in causing antisocial behavior.⁶

Neuropsychological Factors and Crime

Although it is a small organ in the body, the brain plays a special role in the human body systems as it coordinates virtually every activity in the body by transmitting information through the nerves. Human beings are definitely not equal. Some people have better brains as compared to others; for instance, some brains can handle mathematics effortlessly, whilst others are good at sexual motivation and violence. This distinction in phenotypes has attributed to the disparity in its structure and functioning. Certain tools are used to quantify brain configuration and functioning as computed axial tomography scans, magnetic resonance imaging, and functional magnetic resonance imaging. Scholars have conducted a number of neuroimaging to determine the connection between the brain and criminal tendencies. The outcomes of these studies have been positive by indicating a strong link between certain neuro physical factors and delinquent characteristics.

One of those articles is Neuroimaging, Entrapment, and the Predisposition to crime by Carter Snead. The article tackles the developing concept of neuroimaging and its relationship to law. Snead notes that the concept does not permit the state to impose a misdemeanor in the thoughts of an innocent individual in a bid to prosecute him or her.⁷ However, the accused has the onus to provide prima facie evidence to affirm that the government was trying to enforce entrapment. Snead asserts that over the past two decades, there has been increased focus on neuroimaging studies and its influence on antisocial behaviors.⁸ Consequently, criminal defendants have developed a new defense mechanism whereby they produce neuroimages of their brain in an effort to affirm their innocence. Moreover, defendants have also started producing neuroimages when claiming entrapment.⁹

In another article, Through a Scanner Darkly: Functional Neuroimaging as Evidence a Criminal Defendant’s Past Mental States, the authors focus on the functional brain imaging technologies that are used to present evidence on an accused previous mental status. Tenneille Brown and Emily Murphy, the authors of article conclude that functional magnetic resonance imaging (“fMRI”) should not be used to present evidence in the judicial system.¹⁰ The authors argue that the tools only give a probability of the accused previous mental state, and thus it can give biased information¹¹. A number of improvements should be made before it can be acceptable in the courts so that judges are not guided with false information. Brown and Murphy also argue that fMRI has inadequate probative quality as it depends on standardized collection of information and it does not emphasize individual disparities. Moreover, there are also no standardized techniques for analyzing information and developing an activation chart. The authors also observe that fMRI gives a false impression that one is clearly observing the brain, thus understanding the thoughts of the defendant. It also weakens the fact finders’ capability to examine evidence. Since criminal law seeks to identify the impossible, it would be advisable to conduct further research to enhance the use of fMRI as a device for determining the past mental status of suspected offenders.¹²

Environment and Crime

Most opponents of biosocial criminology assume that the biosocial theory not only incorporates biology and genetics, but also one’s environment. This assumption is misleading. The biosocial theory checks on the effects of genes whilst examining the impact of environmental factors on criminal behavior. Laura Baker, Catherine Tuvblad, and Adrian Raine in their work, Genetics and Crime, assert that criminals tend to keep criminal company¹³. This inclination is normally triggered by a selection and influence process. Moreover, most criminal activities are often not practiced in solitarily, but in groups. By associating with other individuals, innocent people learn the skills, methods, values, and intentions of criminals. In essence, theorists assert that criminal acts are largely transferrable through personal interaction especially during adolescence¹⁴. Peer influence has a substantial impact on youngsters as at this stage in their development, they seek identity and realize who they actually are. Antisocial habits are often at peak when one is in adolescence and they gradually disappear during early adulthood.¹⁵

The authors note that to determine the peer and sibling influence, it is appropriate to use twin samples. The twin siblings often imitate each other’s characters and unfortunately, they at times copy criminal traits. Numerous researches have observed similarity in criminal tendencies between twins and there are cases where twins conspire to commit criminal acts. Biosocial criminologists have observed that genetics as well as mutual environmental elements were likely to affect the development of a youngster.

In Genetic and Environmental Influences on Criminal Behavior, Chakraborty, Upreti, and Mishra emphasize the relationship between genetic-environment components and growth of criminal acts.¹⁶ They refer to the research that have been conducted using twin samples as well as physical and brain ailments that facilitate the development of such traits. Nonetheless, at times the anticipated environmental components fail to influence people to engage in criminal activities. The authors assert that the phenotypic variance is broken down to form genetic as well as environmental elements. Scholars have adopted other major techniques of measuring the distinct impacts of genetic-environmental elements, viz. adoption research and genetic detection technique. Though the twin and adoption techniques have been used widely, they fail to determine the gene that exists on human traits’ phenotypes. However, the article affirms that use of molecular genetics studies can help in resolving the latter problem.¹⁷

Critique of Biosocial Theory

Despite the rapid growing interest in biosocial criminology, there is fear that it can trigger the emergence of inhumane and violent policies. However, this fear is deceptive. Research should not be influence by its potential impact, but by facts and practical evidence retrieved from experiments. The best way of resolving a conflict is to detect its cause, as opposed to focusing on the presumed effects of its resolution. Similarly, the best way of dealing with antisocial, criminal, and delinquent acts is by examining all the possible causes of crime, rather than being rigid on sociological concepts.

One of the major strengths of the biosocial theory is that it utilizes a broad scope in an effort to determine the causes. It goes contrary to the common approaches adopted by the mainstream theories that focus on sociological explanation and introduces genetic-environmental and neuropsychological components. However, some devices used to measure the possibilities of criminal tendencies are still not effective; for instance, fMRI that is used to measure the functioning of the brain. Using such devices to present neuroimage evidence in court will be an abuse to justice. More studies should be conducted with respect to the biosocial theory to rectify the existing mistakes.

Conclusion

The discussion in this paper focused on the biosocial theory, which is quickly capturing the attention of many criminologists. The world is transforming fast with science becoming the foundation of such changes. In recommendation, mainstream criminologists should depart from pure sociological thoughts and incorporate biology and genetics in their reasoning. Nevertheless, the biosocial theory is not immune to weaknesses. These weaknesses should be addressed before the theory can be fully endorsed.

Bibliography

Baker, Laura, Catherine Tuvblad, and Adrian Raine. “Genetics and Crime.” In The SAGE Handbook of Criminological Theory, Edited by Eugene McLaughlin and Tim Newburn, 21-39. Los Angeles, Sage, 2011.

Boisvert, Danielle, John Wright, Valarie Knopik, and Jamie Vaske. “Genetic and environmental overlap between low self-control and delinquency.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 28, no.3 (2012):477–507.

Brown, Teneille, and Emily Murphy. “Through a scanner darkly: functional neuroimaging as evidence of a criminal defendant’s past mental states.” Stanford Law Review 62, no. 4 (2010): 1119-1208.

Chakraborty, Kanti, Pratyush Upreti, and Anoop Mishra. “Genetic & Environmental Influences on Criminal Behavior.” Calcutta Law Time 19, no. 1 (2011): 36 -37.

Snead, Carter. “Neuroimaging, Entrapment, and the Predisposition to Crime.” American Journal of Bioethics 7, no. 9 (2007): 60-61.

Wright, Paul and Kevin Beaver. “Do Parents Matter in Creating Self- Control in Their Children? A Genetically Informed Test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s Theory of Low Self-Control.” Criminology 43, no.4 (2005): 1169-1202.

Footnotes

1. Danielle Boisvert, John Wright, Valarie Knopik, and Jamie Vaske, “Genetic and environmental overlap between low self-control and delinquency,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 28, no.3 (2012):477–507.
2. Ibid, 481.
3. Ibid, 496.
4. Ibid, 500.
5. Paul Wright and Kevin Beaver, “Do Parents Matter in Creating Self- Control in their Children? A Genetically Informed Test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s Theory of Low Self-Control,” Criminology 43, no.4 (2005): 1169.
6. Ibid, 1197.
7. Carter Snead, “Neuroimaging, Entrapment, and the Predisposition to Crime,” American Journal of Bioethics 7, no. 9 (2007): 60.
8. Ibid, 61.
9. Ibid, 61.
10. Teneille Brown, and Emily Murphy, “Through a scanner darkly: functional neuroimaging as evidence of a criminal defendant’s past mental states,” Stanford Law Review 62, no. 4 (2010): 1119-1208.
11. Ibid, 1196.
12. Ibid, 1200.
13. Laura Baker, Catherine Tuvblad, and Adrian Raine, “Genetics and Crime,” in The SAGE Handbook of Criminological Theory, ed. Eugene McLaughlin and Tim Newburn (Los Angeles, Sage, 2011), 21-39.
14. Ibid, 24.
15. Ibid, 28.
16. Kanti Chakraborty, Pratyush Upreti, and Anoop Mishra, “Genetic & Environmental Influences on Criminal Behavior,” Calcutta Law Time 19, no. 1 (2011): 36.
17. Ibid, 36.