Biocrime: Neurochemicals
in Criminal and Anti-Social Behavior
Shahanshah Gulpham
Research Scholar,
Criminology, Dept of Sociology and Social Work, Aligarh Muslim University,
Aligarh
ABSTRACT:
How do some people decide to commit a crime? Do they think about the
benefits and the risks? Why do some people commit crimes regardless of the
consequences? Why do others never commit a crime, no matter how desperate their
circumstances? Throughout history people have tried to explain what causes
abnormal social behavior including crime. Some recent bio-forensic studies have found that
certain neurotransmitter, neurochemicals imbalances
in the brain such as low serotonin, and certain hormone imbalances such as
extra testosterone, are associated with some greater likelihood of committing
crime.
Criminal
behavior has always been a focus for psychologists due to the age old debate
between nature and nurture. Is it the responsibility of an individual's genetic
makeup that makes them a criminal or is it the environment in which they are
raised that determines their outcome? Research has been conducted regarding
this debate which has resulted in a conclusion that both genes and environment
do play a role in the criminality of an individual. This evidence has been
generated from a number of twin, family, and adoption studies as well as laboratory
experiments. Furthermore, the research has stated that it is more often an
interaction between genes and the environment that predicts criminal behavior.
Having a genetic predisposition for criminal behavior does not determine the
actions of an individual, but if they are exposed to the right environment,
then their chances are greater for engaging in criminal or anti-social
behavior. Therefore, this paper will examine the different functions that
genetics and the environment play in the criminal behavior of individuals.
KEYWORDS: Biocrimes, Neurochemicals, Gene,
Anti-Social behavior, Environment
INTRODUCTION:
In the early
part of the present century it was a very popular notion that criminality is
hereditary. According to this notion those who commit have particular criminal
traits in connection with this contention. We can mention the Hobrosian doctrines which maintain a close relationship
between physical structure and criminal behavior. Lambroso
and his followers have used comparison of criminals and savages and they come
to the conclusion that criminal are born. Dugdale and
Estrabrook have extensively used family trees in the
effort to prove that criminality is inherited. Study of Dugdale
and Estrabrook thus pointed out that criminal traits
appear in successive generations. Karl Rath in his
study of family history has attempted to demonstrate that criminality in
successive generations appears in accordance with Mendelian
ratio. Lambroso
and his followers have insisted that criminal have certain physical traits.
According to them criminals are characterized by certain stigma. So then the
criminal constitute an inferior biological type. Similarly according to Hootan
there are differences between prisoners and non prisoners. He comes to the
conclusion that the primary cause of crime is biological inferiority.
New Lambroso theory mentions that mental defectiveness is the
main causes of crime. In other words the roots of crime are based on mental
pathologies namely, feeble mindedness, insanity, neuropathy conditions and
psychopathic personality.
In some
cases, however, one of the other of these environments may be primarily
responsible for the behavior, as when an individual with no observable
psychological or biological peculiarities succumbs to the influence of
antisocial companions. Our concern here is with cases at the other end of the
biosocial, spectrum, namely, those instances in which pathological internal
environments appear to dominate- in which the major causative role may be
assigned to biological conditions. Research show that heredity may account for
as much as 50% of the variance in scores achieved on various measures of
personality (Dworkin etal.,
1976) for instance, found heritability intimates of 56 to 72% on questionnaires
measuring aggression, altruism, assertiveness, empathy, and nurturance, over 25
studies have been published since Rosenthal review (1975) of research in this
area. Genetics, which is a study of biology involving heredity and different
traits, is questioningly being incorporated into criminality research. This new
area of study revolves around the controversial possibility that anti-social
characteristics are inherited. The relevancy of biology to the study of crime
seems to be justified and researchers are presently developing the ground work.
Researchers have divided the study of genetics and crime into four different
categories: family studies, twin studies, adoption studies and crime
environment interaction studies. Considerations such as social, political or treatment
implications as well as the financial and emotional impact that criminals have
on society must be taken into account when studding the relationship between
genetics and crime. Lambroso (1918) was one of the
first investigators to assess the possible connections between heredity and
crime through the study of phrenology. He said that criminals were a throwback
of an earlier development stage of mankind acknowledged by the slanting
foreheads and protruding jaws. Sheldon (1942) is credited with developing the
first genetic theory of criminality which eventually led to the XYY sex
chromosome theory in the early 1960s.A handful researchers have introduced this
topic so far and because of their pioneer ship, many more will have an easier
path to follow in the study of genetics and crime. The history of criminology
does not reflect early beginning as found in medicine and biology. In the 1920
the term criminology was used to apply to sociology. Criminology started with
the
Individuals
are not inherently criminal, nor do they become homicidal maniacs (except under
certain circumstances). Evidence is now accumulating that the developing brain
of a fetus is relatively fragile and sensitive to insult. Insults can be
directly biological, for example, when a mother abuses alcohol and/ or drugs,
or indirectly biological, when the mother experiences a severe psychological
trauma and the physiological consequences are experienced by both her and her
baby.
Neurochemicals-
Recent
studies have found that certain neurotransmitter imbalances in the brain such
as low serotonin, and certain hormone imbalances such as extra testosterone,
are associated with some greater likelihood of committing crime. Other studies
have found that criminals tend to have slower reactions in their autonomic
nervous systems. While some criminologists infer that these biological
conditions increase the tendency to commit crime, other criminologists point
out that all of these biological factors can be influenced by the environmental
conditions. There has been considerable research, for example, on the influence
of diet on crime, with some people arguing that excessive sugar intake results
in increased aggression in juveniles. Consuming alcohol has a strong
relationship with increased aggression in the short run, as does the
consumption of certain illegal drugs. Ingesting various toxic substances such
as lead tends to result in long-term increases in the commit crime. In
addition, complications during pregnancy or birth and certain types of head
injuries increase the risk of crime in the long run. There is, however, a
similar problem with inferring that these environmentally based biological
conditions cause crime.
The
perception that crime, especially violent crime, has become one of the most
serious problems facing society has led to determined efforts by many
researchers to find the causes of criminal behavior. Researchers have focused
on biological causes, believing that a biological basis of criminality exists
and that an understanding of the biology will be useful in predicting which
people are predisposed to become criminals. In the 1960s it was proposed that
males with an extra Y chromosome were predisposed to violent criminal behavior;
later work found no support for this hypothesis. Recently, two approaches, one
genetic, the other biochemical, have received widespread publicity. I would
argue that currently approach provides convincing evidence that criminal
behavior can be understood in terms of genetics or biochemistry.
Neurochemicals
are responsible for the activation of behavior patterns and tendencies in
specific areas of the brain. As seen in the Brunner et al. study, there have
been attempts to determine the role of neurochemicals
in influencing criminal or antisocial behavior. Included in the list of neurochemicals already cited by researchers are monoamine oxidase (MAO), epinephrine, nor epinephrine, serotonin, and
dopamine.
Monoamine oxidase (MAO) is an enzyme that has been shown to be
related to antisocial behavior. Specifically, low MAO activity results in disinhibition which can lead to impulsivity and aggression.
The Brunner et al. study is the only one to report finding of a relationship
between a point mutation in the structural gene for MAOA and aggression, which
makes the findings rare. However, there has been other evidence that points to
the conclusion that deficiencies in MAOA activity may be more common and as a
result may predispose individuals to antisocial or aggressive behavior. MAO is
associated with many of the neurochemicals that
already have a link to antisocial or criminal behavior. Nor epinephrine,
serotonin, and dopamine are metabolized by both MAOA and MAOB. While, according
to Eysenck (1996), MAO is not related to nor
epinephrine, epinephrine, and dopamine, which are all related to the
personality factor of psychosis.
Serotonin is
a neurochemical that plays an important role in the
personality traits of depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder (Larsen and
Buss, 2005). It is also involved with brain development and a disorder in this
system could lead to an increase in aggressiveness and impulsivity (Morley and
Hall, 2003). As Lowenstein (20030) states, “studies point to serotonin as one
of the most important central neuro-transmitters
underlying the modulation of impulsive behavior and emotional aggression. In
addition, children who suffer from conduct disorder, have also been shown to
have low blood serotonin. Needless to say, there is a great deal of evidence
that shows serotonin is related to aggression, which can be further associated
with antisocial or criminal behavior.
Dopamine is
a neuro-transmitter in the brain that is associated
with pleasure and is also one of the neurotransmitters that is chiefly
associated with aggression. Activation of both affective (emotionally driven)
and predatory aggression is accomplished by dopamine. Genes in the dopaminergic pathway have also been found to be involved
with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). In one study cited by
Morley and Hall (2003), a relationship was found between the genes in the dopaminergic pathway, impulsivity, ADHD, and violent
offenders. Obviously, from this list of neurochemicals
it seems plausible that there is a genetic component to antisocial or criminals
behavior.
CONCLUSION:
This has
clearly proven that genetic factors can and do influence certain types of
criminal behavior, and recidivistic criminal behavior in particular. First,
biological factors must be added to the list of causes of crime; it is through
heritable biological structures and processes that the genes exert their
influence. Second, we must try to identify the specific biological mechanisms
through witch heritable predispositions toward criminal behavior are expressed.
By identifying these mechanisms, we can learn how to successfully treat and
prevent criminal behavior. Research on the genetic components of human behavior
suffers in general from numerous methodological and interpretive flaws. It is
difficult to isolate genetic factors from developmental events, cultural influences,
early experiences, and housing conditions. It is also severely criticized
because criminal behavior is a legalistic label, not descriptive of actual
behavior. Genetic studies that focus on criminal behavior may be inherently
flawed; as criminal behavior is heterogeneous, genetic effects may be more
directly associated with particular traits that place individuals at risk for
criminal labeling. As a rule, what is inherited is not a behavior; rather, it
is the way in which an individual responds to the environment. Also, genetic
influences on human behavior are polygenic- no single gene effect can be
identified for most behaviors. In sum, social behavior is learned through the
principles of conditioning, which are founded on biological and genetic dictates
in accord with stimulus-response relationships. Social behavior satisfies
biological needs and drives by providing adaptive mechanisms for reproduction,
mating, rearing, defense, and numerous other biological functions. The
weaknesses in design, sampling techniques, and statistical procedures prevent
drawing distinct conclusions, and results are frequently contested and
unreliable. I believe, deriving from the information researched on the
relationship between genetics and criminality, that heredity definitely
influences deviant behavior in society. The environment, rearing practices,
outside influences, etc. also play a role in the development of criminal
behavior. A mixture of both factors clearly shows that genetics is, at the
least, a justifiable issue in criminology.
REFERENCES:
1. Bartol, C.R. Criminal Behavior (Prentice,
1990).
2. Bowlby, John. A Secure Base:
Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. New York:
Basic Books, 1988.
3.
Carus WS (2002) Bioterrorism and Biocrimes: The
Illicit Use of Biological Agents Since 1900 Fredonia Books, Netherlands, pp.
1-209
4.
CDC
(1990) Possible transmission of human immunodeficiency virus to a patient
during an invasive dental procedure. MMWR 39:489–493
5.
CDC
(1991) Update: transmission of HIV infection during an invasive dental
procedure---Florida. MMWR 40:21–27.
6.
Ciesielski C, Marianos D, Ou CY, Dumbaugh R, Witte J, Berkelman R, Gooch B, Myers G, Luo
CC, Schochetman G, et al (1992) Transmission of human
immunodeficiency virus in a dental practice. Ann. Intern. Med. 116:798-805.
7. Cleckely, Hervey. The Mask of Sanity.
New York: New American Library, 1982.
8. Coffin JM (1995) HIV population dynamics in
vivo: implications for genetic variation, pathogenesis, and therapy. Science
267:483-489.
9. Dudley, William, ed. Crime and Criminals:
Opposing Viewpoints (Greenhaven, 1989).
10. Lombroso, Cesare.
Crime: Its Causes and Remedies. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith, 1968.
11. Metzker, ML, Mindell DP,
Liu X, Ptak RG, Gibbs RA, Hillis
DM (2002) Molecular evidence of HIV-1 transmission in a criminal case. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99(22):14292-14297.
12. Renzetti, Claire M., and Lynne
Goodstein, eds. Women, Crime, and Criminal Justice. Los Angeles:
Roxbury, 2001.
Received on 05.04.2011
Modified on 21.04.2011
Accepted on 20.05.2011
© A&V Publication all right reserved
Research J.
Science and Tech. 3(4): July-August. 2011: 217-219