Explanations of Criminal BehaviourPsychology is clearly not the only contributor to explanations of criminal behaviour, although in the past it has tended to be viewed as a rather simplistic and conservative contributor. This may be due to its emphasis on individual pathology, i.e. a search for deficits within the individual, and an apparent neglect of social factors in the construction of criminal careers. More recent developments in psychology, and particularly in the applied field of forensic psychology, however, have made a considerable impact on the contribution psychology as a discipline can make to our understanding of crime.

Before attempting an overview of the input of psychology, we need to take a step back and consider the problematic concept of crime itself. The question, what is crime?sounds as if it should have obvious answers, and certainly there would probably be widespread agreement that some acts, such as personal violence or theft, constitute crimes the world over. However, there might be disagreement about whether these acts are still seen as crimes if the rule of law is challenged, for instance in wartime. It was only in 2001 that the mass rape of Muslim women during the Bosnian conflict of 1992-95 was first deemed to be a crime against humanity, with three of its perpetrators receiving lengthy prison sentences at the Hague War Tribunal. Prior to this, wartime rape and the provision of kidnapped 'comfort women' for soldiers had been regarded simply as a by-product of war.

While legal sanctions hold, there is reasonable understanding about what constitutes crime, but this understanding tends to vary according to historical, cultural and power dimensions which may rule different behaviours as criminal at different times. Obvious examples of this are when laws change, so for example attempting suicide was regarded as a criminal offence until 1961, while incest was not classed as a crime until 1908. Similarly, female circumcision is acceptable in some cultures though not in the UK, while in contrast male circumcision has never been against the law, though in both cases genital mutilation occurs without the consent of the individual concerned. Age and mental state also influence whether someone is regarded as having committed a crime. The age of criminal responsibility varies considerably from country to country, so in the UK it is 10 while in Norway it is 15. The murder of two small children by other children in both countries in 1993 and 1994 highlights the very different views taken of similar crimes. In 1993, two-year-old James Bulger was taken away from his mother in a Liverpool shopping centre by two boys aged ten who subsequently beat and murdered him. Both boys were charged with murder and appeared in an adult court more than a year later, when they were ordered to serve a minimum sentence of eight years. This was subsequently increased to ten and then fifteen years in response to public and media outrage, though this action was later deemed unlawful. During their time on remand they did not receive any psychiatric help because of their not guilty pleas, prompting one of the jurors to remark five years later:

The trial was about retribution ... It was apparent that in the dock were two children; almost entirely uncomprehending of most of the proceedings; distressed by those parts they did understand; subject to trial as if they were aware adults; unaccountably branded as 'evil' by the judge. (The Guardian, 5th November 1999, Letters).

Mentally ill offenders are not normally held responsible for their crimes unless it can be demonstrated that they intended to break the law. However, in many trials the distinction between offenders being presented as 'mad' or 'bad' has proved controversial and moved beyond simple psychiatric diagnosis into the realms of moral responsibility. For instance, Peter Sutcliffe murdered 13 women in the 1970s and his defence claimed diminished responsibility on the grounds that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and heard voices telling him to kill prostitutes. The jury, however, decided that Sutcliffe was not sufficiently mentally ill to be absolved of responsibility for the murders; he was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. Three years later he was transferred to a

special hospital because of his mental illness. Similarly Jeffrey Dahmer, who murdered and cannibalised 17 young men in the 1980s, was found not to be suffering from the personality disorder and necrophilia his

1

defence described, and was sent to prison, where he was murdered by another inmate in 1994. In both cases there was clear evidence of dysfunctional behaviour with psychiatric symptoms, and yet the horrific nature of the crimes seems to have demanded some form of public accountability and retribution.

Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer makes his initial court appearance in Milwaukee County Court with his lawyer, 25 July 1991. Dahmer is wearing the shirt of one of his 17 victims

(Psychology in Practice – Crime; Julie Harrower 2011)

BIOLOGICAL APPROACH

Are criminals born or made? This question is one that early theorists of criminal behaviour tried to address. The earliest theories of crime were mostly based on the idea that criminals were somehow biologically different from non-criminals. The father of criminology Cesare Lombroso in the 1870s argued that criminals were a throwback to an earlier evolutionary state. Criminals, he argued, could be identified by facial features that expressed their criminal tendencies. He called this the “atavistic form” A later theory posed by Sheldon (1940) argued that criminal behaviour came about due to various body types. Sheldon claimed that the muscular build of mesomorphs made them more self-assertive and thus more likely to engage in criminal activity than thin, self-conscious ectomorphs or fat sociable, comfort loving endomorphs.

However, while these two biological theories have largely been debunked, the surge in research suggesting a genetic basis for behaviours in other areas of psychology has caused some to look for a genetic basis for criminal behaviour. Crime might not initially seem to lend itself to a genetic cause. As we examined in the previous topic, crime can be an imprecise term, susceptible to cultural differences and changes over time. Such a shifting phenomenon may cause problems for a genetic theory. However, we also argued that there are some things that are considered criminal almost universally. Perhaps genetics can provide a good explanation for these particular crimes.

Dion, Berscheid and Walster (1972) found that people attributed more positive qualities to attractive people than to unattractive people. They were shown photographs and asked to rate people's personality characteristics on the basis of pictures alone. Their very favourable ratings of attractive people demonstrated the what-is-beautiful-is-also good stereotype, whereby a halo effect seems to operate and assumptions are made on the basis of physical attributes alone. The stereotype seems to operate across a range of settings including the courtroom. Stewart (1980) found that judges were less likely to imprison attractive defendants than unattractive defendants, while Downs and Lyons (1991) showed that judges imposed lower fines on attractive defendants.(J.Horrower 2011)

Few modern proponents of a hereditary basis for criminal behaviour claim that there are “genes for crime.” There is not for instance a “murderer” gene or a “burglar” gene. What Hollin (1992) amongst others suggested was that some people inherit a biological predisposition to commit crime. It can also be argued that people inherit predispositions for

2

personalities that make them more likely to commit crime. According to Goldsmith and Gottesman (1996):

“Notions such as “genes for crime” are nonsense, but the following notion is reasonable: There may be partially genetically influenced predispositions for basic behavioural tendencies, such as impulsivity, that in certain experiential contexts make the probability of committing certain crimes higher than for individuals who possess lesser degrees of such behavioural tendencies.”

Before looking at the research into the genetic basis of criminal behaviour, what is your opinion? Do you think criminal behaviour can be explained by genes? How would we know? Can you anticipate any methodological issues that research in this area might face? Could there be any social or ethical implications if it were found that criminal

behaviour was genetic?NOTE: When we learned about genetic theories for addiction, we looked at twin, family and adoption studies. The same types of heritability studies have been used here to investigate the genetic basis of criminal behaviour. When evaluating, you should refer back to this factsheet for information.

Twin StudiesWhat is a twin study? What are the two types of twin? What do they tell us about the genetic basis of a behaviour? If criminal behaviour is genetic, what should we find in a

twin study?

One of the earliest twin studies into criminal behaviour was Rosanoff et al (1934). He studied 97 twin pairs, finding male concordance rates of 22/33 MZ (67%) and 3/23 DZ (13%).

Raine (1993), whose brain scan research has been ground breaking in our understanding of the brain, reviewed the literature comparing the delinquent behaviour of twins, and it was found that the average concordance rate was higher for MZ twins (52%) than DZ twins (21%). A later meta-analysis by Ishikawa and Raine (2002) found a concordance rate for criminality of 44% for MZ twins and 21.6% for DZ twins

What do these studies seem to suggest and why?

3

However, not all twin studies support the view that crime is genetic. Dalgard and Kringlen (1976) studied 49 male MZ and 89 same-sex male DZ pairs, finding no statistically significant concordance rate difference using either a “broad” or “strict” definition of crime. The MZ twin concordance rate for broadly defined crime was 22%, and 26% for strictly defined crime. On the basis of these results and of the more similar environments experienced by identical twins, the authors concluded, “These findings support the view that hereditary factors are of no significant importance in the aetiology (cause) of common crime.”

While twin studies give psychologists the opportunity to investigate the genetic basis of a behaviour, they have several weaknesses. Using the Factsheet, apply the weaknesses of

twin studies to the research here.

Family StudiesA number of studies have been done with regards to investigating the concordance of criminal behaviour between members of the same family. One relationship that is often investigated is that between fathers and sons. Osborn and West (1979) found that 13% of sons with non-criminal fathers had criminal records, while 20% of sons of criminal fathers had records.

Similarly, Farrington (2002) investigated the concentration of criminal behaviour in families by looking at three generations of relatives, including parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. It was found that if one relative had been arrested, there was a high probability that another relative had also been arrested. The most important relative was the father; if the father had been arrested, there was a high chance of sons being arrested too. While this would initially seem to suggest that genes may play a part, we cannot rule out the effect of the shared environment. Another finding from Farrington was that having a young mother and living in a bad neighbourhood added to the probability of fathers and sons being arrested. This again confuses the issue of genes and environment

Using the Factsheet, apply the weaknesses of family studies to the research here.

Can you think of another reason why being the child of a criminal may mean you are more likely to be arrested?

Adoption studiesWhat advantage do adoption studies have over twin and family studies?

If a behaviour is genetic, what should we find when we use an adoption study?

4

Mednick et al (1987) studied over 14,000 adoptees and found the relationships in the table below.

How could we use this data to argue that crime is

genetic?How could we use this data to argue that the environment has an effect?Interestingly, even when adoptive parents know that their adopted child’s family history of criminality, this has no effect on their later criminal behaviour (Bohman 1996).

Using the Factsheet, apply the weaknesses of adoption studies to the research here.

Which genes?If there is a genetic basis for criminal behaviour, then genes should be able to be identified which lead to that behaviour. The gene would have some sort of effect on the body, which would in turn lead to the behaviour such as impulsiveness or aggression that would lead to a higher risk of criminal behaviour. There have been a number of potential genes for criminal behaviour proposed.

Retz et al (2004) found an association between one variant of the 5-HTTLPR gene and violent behaviour. Reif et al (2009) similarly found links between the NOS1 gene and aggression in animals, which led him to investigate links between the NOS1 gene and impulsivity in humans.

One gene that is of particular interest is the gene for monoamine oxidase type-A (MAOA), which helps to recycle the neurotransmitter serotonin. Seo et al (2008) proposed that low levels of serotonin may predispose individuals to impulsive and aggressive behaviour. Brunner et al (1993) studied a Dutch family, many of whom were highly aggressive. Their behaviour was linked to a mutation in the MAOA gene, meaning that they had abnormally low levels of serotonin. This could possibly account for their aggressive behaviour. This is supported by other studies that have found a link between a mutation in this genes and criminal behaviour (Tiihonen et al, 2015)

However, simply identifying potential genes is not enough. We need to identify exactly what the genes does in the body or brain in order to create the criminal behaviour. As we have seen above, mutation in the MAOA gene may affect levels of serotonin, altering behaviour. Another possible explanation may be that these genes cause changes in the brain.

5

Parents with a criminal record

% of sons with a criminal record?

None 13.5Biological only 20.0Adoptive only 14.7Biological and adoptive 24.5

Think back to Raine (1997). What differences did he find between the brains of controls

and NGRI murderers?

It might also be the case that these genes cause criminals to inherit a different type of personality, one that predisposes them towards crime. We will look at Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality in a later topic.

Diathesis-Stress and EpigeneticsWhat is the diathesis-stress model? What is epigenetics? How could this be applied to criminal behaviour? How could the findings of Caspi et al (2002) provide evidence for this explanation? Why might this be a better explanation than genes alone? (Use the

information from pg 90 to help you).

EvaluationBefore we look at the evaluation points, what are your initial thoughts about the theory that criminal behaviour is genetic? Are there any strengths? Any weaknesses? Can you spot any ethical or social issues? How could we use this information?

Evaluation of the genetic explanation of criminal behaviour

6

Although results from adoption studies have consistently revealed a relationship between biological parents and children and criminal behaviour, the relationship is strongest for minor crimes such as property vandalism and minor offences rather than for violent crime. This is at odds with a large bulk of genetic research which suggests that the main effect of genes is on levels of aggression. Again, this suggests that the relationship between genes and crime is more complicated that it seems.

Why can genes not provide a full explanation of criminal behaviour

It may be the case that in the future, we will be able to identify more genes for criminal behaviour. If criminality is due to genes, it is likely to be due to the interaction of a large number of genes rather than just one or two. It is therefore likely to be polygenic.

Much of the research that this theory is based on is heritability studies. As you have seen, these studies have a number of methodological issues. They are also non-experimental, therefore cause and effect relationships cannot be drawn

The theory could be argued to be reductionist. Genetic explanations ignore the role of society and culture. All criminals are assessed equally regardless of socioeconomic background or education. Is it necessarily appropriate to say that the causes of crime are the same for a poorly educated working class person with a limited education as a successful, well-educated businessman? The real causes of crime are varied, and complicated. It is probably better to take an interactionist approach, seeing genes, society, upbringing and personality all interacting to cause criminal behaviour.

Another problem, and one that we investigated in the last topic, was that the definition of crime is a constantly shifting target. What is considered to be a crime depends upon your culture, and the time period in which you live. Genes change slowly, over thousands of years, while cultural views on what is criminal can change within a decade. It therefore may be difficult to argue that crime is genetic.

Methodologically, there is a big problem when conducting research into criminals:

It could be argued that these theories have a gender bias. A lot of the research has focused solely on men, and theories have either ignored women, or applied the same theories to them as to men. There has been little attempt to investigate criminality in women, and it may not be appropriate to assume that the reasons women become criminals is the same as men. The genetic theory of crime therefore could be falling for a beta bias

Similarly, how could research into the genetic basis of crime have a culture bias? Why might this be a problem?

7

Ethical issues. As with other biological explanations, a number of ethical

issues are raised. If there are genes identified for criminal behaviour, then what happens to people who are found to carry this gene? On the one hand, identifying the gene may allow psychologists to stage interventions early in life to alter a child’s behaviour so that they do not turn to criminal behaviour late in life. On the other hand, this evidence could be misused; could the fact that an individual carries a gene for criminal behaviour be used as evidence against them in court?

o Another ethical issue, is if criminal behaviour is caused by biological factors such as genes, can we hold people responsible for their actions? Should be punish criminals if their behaviour was caused by physiological forces beyond their control?

Another ethical issue is that all of these theories place the blame for offending inside the offender. It could be argued that by doing this it absolves society and the government of any responsibility. It has been argued that the main reason for crime is social inequality and poverty. By placing the blame within the criminal, it is ignoring the real reasons for crime.

When people read about an alleged genetic link to crime, they are apt to conclude that “crime is genetic.” This leads to a belief that criminality is the result of genetic makeup—and not of racism, poverty, and other oppressive social conditions—thereby influencing public attitudes toward ethnic groups having a relatively high conviction/incarceration rate. Therefore, such research may be argued to be socially sensitive. As certain ethnic groups are more likely to be arrested and imprisoned than others, it may lead to the belief that these groups are genetically inferior.

One extreme consequence of a belief that criminality is genetic can lead to is the attempt to eradicate criminal genes from the population. In the past, it has been official government policy that criminals were forcibly sterilised so as to prevent them passing their genes on to the next generation. This is called eugenics. The following text comes from The Gene Illusion by Jay Joseph:

There were frequent calls for the sterilization of criminals on eugenic grounds during this period. Vasectomy was proposed in the late nineteenth century by A. J. Ochsner as a “humane” alternative to castration. Ochsner justified this procedure on the grounds that it was “demonstrated beyond a doubt that that a very large proportion of all criminals, degenerates and perverts have come from parents similarly afflicted.” He believed that a large-scale sterilization of criminals “would do away with hereditary criminals from the father’s side,” and recommended the same treatment for “chronic inebriates, imbeciles, perverts and paupers.” In 1907, Indiana became the first of many U.S. states to pass a law permitting compulsory eugenic sterilization. The law sanctioned sterilization “to prevent procreation of confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles, and rapists” residing in a state institution, and who had been judged as “unimprovable” by a panel of physicians. A prison physician, Harry Sharp, had performed vasectomies on inmates in Indiana since 1899. According to Sharp, “There is no disputing the fact that mental as well as physical defects are transmitted to the

8

offspring. . . . The decidedly defective individual is very easily recognized, as the mental abnormality is usually accompanied with prominent physical defects, described by Lombroso.”

Exam Practice

1. Describe one biological explanations of criminal behaviour. [10] This sort of question is typical of an AO1 style description question. For the 10 marks, you will need to write about two sides of A4 and under timed

conditions would be about 15 minutes. o Alternatively, the question could ask for two theories. In which case you would

be expected to write in half as much depth and detail than if asked for one. You should start by firstly explaining what the theory states about the cause of

criminal behaviour. As this is a description question, you can include some research, but your focus should be on describing the theory. Therefore, you should include details about what genes may be involved, epigenetics and the diathesis stress model.

o Take into account how many marks the question is worth. You do not need to include every single thing covered in lessons. Often less is more. Discuss a few things but in a good amount of depth.

As it is an AO1 question, you do not need to evaluate. You should aim to use accurate terminology. Your answer needs both range and depth.

2. Evaluate one biological explanations of criminal behaviour. [15] This type of question is testing your AO2 skills. Here you would gain AO2 marks from

providing evidence that supports or contradicts the theory you have chosen to write about.

It is also testing your AO3 skills. This means you must evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the biological explanation, including evaluating the evidence you provide.

As it is not testing your AO1 skills, you would not gain marks for describing the theory As it is 15 marks, you would have about 22 minutes and be expected to write around

3-4 sides of A4. o If it were to ask for two theories, you would write half the above for each

theory. You should be aiming to provide a few pieces of research that have investigated the

genetic basis of criminal behaviour. These studies should also be evaluated, looking for the methodological issues, and what this means for the theory.

You should also evaluate the theory as a whole, and if time, address some of the ethical and social implications.

You need to end your essay with a conclusion. Overall, how good is this theory? Is there a better explanation? Are there too many problems for it to be a good theory?

9