Keith E Rice - Biological Theories of Crime

Biological theories demonstrate a deterministic approach in that they assert criminal behaviour has a physiological origin. Many biological theories are concerned with genetics.

One of the first modern biological theories of crime was that of Italian army doctor Cesare Lombroso (1876). Lombroso held that many criminals had been born with ‘atavistic’ features. Criminals had definite biological failings that prevented them from developing to a fully human level. They showed certain ape-like characteristics or sometimes just ‘savage’ features. Such physical anomalies included large jaws, high cheek bones, large ears,long arms, thick skulls and extra nipples, toes and fingers. In his original theory, possessing 5 or more such qualities inevitably led to a criminal type. Thus, criminals could be identified by the presence of certain features. Eg: murderers have thin lips and robbers beak-like noses.

According to Lombroso, such people prefer forms of behaviour that are normal among apes and savages but criminal in human societies. They will frequently indulge in other degenerate behaviour such as having tattoos and participating in orgies.

Initially Lombroso claimed all criminals were born, not made. Later he modified his theory somewhat, claiming about 40% of all criminals were ‘born criminals’ of this kind, driven into criminality by their biology. Making some acknowledgement of other factors, he allowed that other law-breakers were simply occasional, circumstantial offenders and did not have the atavistic characteristics of the born criminal.

Charles Goring (1913) made an extensive study of thousands of English prisoners but could not find the distinctive peculiarities identified by Lombroso. However, he did find a common factor of low intelligence among the prisoners. He attributed this to genetics - in this respect at least, his study supported Lombroso’s assertion that criminals are born not made.

While Lombroso’s ideas have often been ridiculed during the second half of the 20th Century and much made of his poor sampling methods (often using mentally-disturbed individuals) and flaws in his methodology (eg: no control groups), David Garland (1994) asserts that much of what we today think of as ‘criminology’ got its start with Lombroso who attempted to give criminology scientific credibility, in which the objective measurement and categorisation of the criminal classes could be conducted. (Prior to Lombroso, crime and criminal behaviour were the preserve of religious and philosophical debate.

Another key biological theory was that of William Sheldon (1942) who argued that an individual’s body shape (somatype) was correlated with their personality. From a study of several hundred male physiques, Sheldon differentiated 3 main somatypes:-

Ectomorph (thin, wiry frame) - introverted
Endomorph ( heavy and rounded - sociable
Mesomorph (solid, muscular frame) - aggressive and adventurous

The extent of each was based on a 7-point scale, with most males being a mix of each type.

From a sample of males in a rehabilitation centre, Sheldon identified a significant proportion as mesomorphs. Sheldon Glueck & Eleanor Glueck (1950), working with different offender populations, had similar findings.

One explanation for this is that mesomorph is more likely to get involved in crime at an early age due to his intimidating appearance. However, a counter argument is that the prisoners’ more muscular bodies may have developed from the hard manual labour as part of the prisons’ work regimes. Philip Feldman (1977) talks of a ‘selection effect’ in which certain people, because of characteristics such as their build, are more likely to be recruited into criminal activity. There is also the labelling effect to be considered - that the police are more likely to suspect certain people of having been involved in an incident because of their build.

A biological theory which seemed briefly to offer a very powerful explanation for male criminality

was that of the Super Male Syndrome (Avery A Sandberg, G F Koepf, T Ishihara & T S Hauschka, 1961) However, subsequent research has cast much doubt upon the concept. See Chromosomal Problems in Gender Development.

As to whether there is a genetic element in criminality, Johannes Lange’s classic 1931 study of monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins is instructional. 13 pairs MZ twins and 17 DZ pairs were studied with regard to variety of ‘criminal indicators’, such as having a criminal record. The MZ twins had a concordance rate of 77% compared to just 12% of the DZ twins. This suggests very much that there is a genetic element in criminality. However, the sample sizes were rather small. A study by M I Lyons, W R True, S A Eisen, J Goldberg, J M Meyer, S V Faraone, L J Eaves & M T Tsaung (1995) looked at misbehaviour and juvenile crime in thousands of twins. There was little difference between the MZ and DZ twins, suggesting that the environment was more important than genetics in determining criminal behaviour. However, records of criminal and aggressive behaviour in adult twins show higher concordance rates for MZs. This may be an example of epigenetic modification - see Genes & Behaviour. R J Cadoret, W R Yates, E Troughton, G Woodworth & M A Stewart (1995) found that adopted children were more likely to show aggressive behaviour and have conduct disorders if either their adopted home was disrupted - eg: by marital dispute or by drug problems - or their biological parents had criminal records. However, the adopted children were at greatest risk when both these factors applied, suggesting a nature-nurture interaction.

Dehryl Mason & Paul Frick (1994) meta-analysed 12 twin and 3 adoption studies investigating the genetics of criminality. From this, they estimated that nearly half (48%) of the variation in anti-social behaviour in the general population is genetically controlled.

W Retz, P Retz-Junginger, T Supprian, J Thorne & M Rösler (2004) looked at the relationship between violent behaviour the variant gene 5-HTTLPR in 153 men attending psychiatric assessments in with respect to criminal behaviour. The researchers found an association between a particular form of the gene and violent behaviour when the individuals had ADHD as children but not when they had symptoms of personality disorder or impulsivity. Retz et al concluded that the 5-HTTLPR gene, which controls aspects of serotonin, is associated with violent behaviour in male criminals. Interestingly Matti Virkkunen, Arto Nuutila, Frederick Goodwin & Markku Linnoila (1987) found that violent offenders had a lower than average serotonin turnover. According to Virkkunen, Judith De Jong, John Bartko, Goodwin & Linnoila (1989), they are also more likely to commit further violent crimes after being released from prison. These findings with regard to the potential role of serotonin are puzzling. Since low levels of serotonin are often associated with Depression, it might be expected that low levels of this neurotransmitter might result in a reduction of aggression. However H G Brunner, M Nelen, X O Breakefield, H H Ropers & B A Van Oost (1993) studied male members of a Danish family who all demonstrated abnormal aggressive behaviour. They found the aggressive behaviour was linked to a mutation of the gene for monoamine oxidase type-A (MAO-A), the enzyme which breaks down serotonin. Since the mutation was associated with a lack of this enzyme, it would be more difficult for the body to dispose of serotonin.

A Reif, C P Jacob, d Rujescu, S Herterich, S Lang et al (2009) investigated the relationship between impulsivity and variants of the NOS1 gene, using a sample of psychiatric clinics which included 182 criminals. They found that the variant of NOS1 was more prevalent in adults with ADHD, some personality disorders and aggressive behaviour against both self and others. Reif et al found that the gene variant reduced activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (concerned with processing information about emotion and reward); they speculated that the variant of NOS1 may affect the control of impulsive behaviour often associated with aggression.

In 1980 Dan Olweus, Åke Mattsson, Daisy Schalling, Hans Löw & Jan Svensson (1980) measured blood testosterone level in 16-year-old boys and assessed aggression using a questionnaire. High levels of self-reported physical and verbal aggression were associated with higher levels of testosterone. Perhaps unsurprisingly James Dabbs, Timothy Carr, Robert Frady & Jasmin Riad (1995) found that violent male prisoners had higher levels of testosterone than those who had committed non-violent crimes. Perhaps more surprisingly, Dabbs & Marian Hargrove (1997) found a similar relationship with female prisoners - though overall the female prisoners testosterone levels were much lower than those of the males. However, the relationship between violence and higher testosterone levels in both males and females was not very strong - indicating other factors must have been involved too. In 2001 Dabbs, F J Benieri, R K Strong, R Campos & R Milun conducted experimental studies with students and found that individuals with higher levels of testosterone were more assertive, direct and confident in their interactions with others. From this Dabbs et al speculated that this could explain the prevalence of the most cold-hearted and premeditated murders among the prisoners with the highest testosterone levels.

Using PET scans, Adrian Raine, Monte Buchsbaum & Lori LaCasse (1997) compared patterns of brain activity in people who had been convicted of murder or manslaughter with a sample of ‘normal’ controls, matched for age and sex. Of the 39 ‘murderers’, 2 were women and 6 had been diagnosed with Schizophrenia; this was also matched in the control group. Raine et al found reduced activity in both sides of the prefrontal cortex and in the amygdala, thalamus and hippocampus. In the thalamus and the areas surrounding the hippocampus, there was a difference in lateralisation: the murderers’ brains were much more active on the right than the left. The controls used both sides of the thalamus equally and the left side of the area surround the hippocampus more than the right.

The researchers noted that the differences in the murderers’ brains could explain lack of fear, lowered self-control, increased aggression and impulsive behaviour and problems with controlling and expressing emotions. Such differences could lead to an increased risk of committing acts of extreme violence. They are also linked to problems with learning conditioned emotional responses and failure to learn from experiences. The effects on areas associated with learning could also mean lower IQ and, therefore, lower chances of employment and a higher risk of turning to criminal behaviour.

Eysenck’s Criminal Personality

A theory which combines both biological and psychological elements is that of Hans J Eysenck.

Having postulated (1970) that there those high in both Neuroticism (N) and Extraversion (E) - see Dimensions of Temperament - were more likely to engage in criminal behaviour, Eysenck completed his profile of the criminal personality via his third Dimension, Psychoticism (P) (1976). Thus, Eysenck’s ‘criminal personality’ is high theoretically in P, E and N. A number of studies, such as that by B J McGurk & C McDougal (1981), have supported Eysenck’s theory. (McGurk & McDougal compared 100 ‘delinquent’ college students with 100 ‘non-delinquent’ college students and found the former high in P, E and N - especially E and N - while the latter were particularly low in E and N. However, other studies - eg: R Cochrane (1974) - have presented a rather mixed picture as to whether high Extraversion really is a factor in the criminal personality. But, where Psychoticism is concerned, limited research - eg: Adrian Raine, Peter Venables & Mark Williams (1995) and Hans Steiner, Elizabeth Cauffman & Elaine Duxbury (1999) - shows consistently a clear link between scoring high in Psychoticism and recidivism (frequent offending).

In their critical review of the domain, Eysenck & Gisli Gudjonnson (1989) discuss these points and attribute the heterogeneity of prison populations as a confounding factor. Cluster analyses of personality profiles in prison populations suggest, they say, two types of criminals; the active type (high on P, high on E, high on N), and the inadequate (socially) type (high on P, low on E, high on N). It is the active type, which corresponds to the theoretically-expected PEN profile (high on P, E, and N) in criminal populations. Eysenck & Gudjonsson conclude that: "This is certainly a differentiation that should be borne in mind in all future studies" (p. 85, ‘The Causes and Cures of Criminality’, Plenum Press, New York).