In this blog post, we will explore how criminal tendency is related to genetic factors from the perspectives of brain science and neurocriminology.
On September 13, 1848, a large rock was being blasted in the Green Mountains of Vermont, USA. Foreman Phineas Gay was in charge of installing gunpowder in the drilled hole, and the procedure was to pour sand into the hole loaded with gunpowder, light the fuse, and then escape to safety. However, on that day, unfortunately, an accident occurred in which gunpowder caught fire without the sand being poured into the hole. Phineas did not pay attention at that moment, and with a bang, the iron rod pierced his head. Amazingly, he survived, and Dr. Hallow’s efforts saved his life. This incident attracted great attention from doctors because not only did Phineas survive, but his personality changed 180 degrees after the accident. Phineas, who was usually cheerful and mild-tempered, began to show a capricious and violent tendency after the accident. Brain damage caused a change in personality. This was considered an example of the possibility of a relationship between the biological factor of the brain and the psychological factor of personality.
The discipline that deals with such research is neuroscience. Neuroscience explores various changes caused by brain damage, and neurocriminology is a field that studies the link between brain damage and crime. This article will focus on neurocriminology.
The origins of neurocriminology can be traced back to Cesare Lombroso, an Italian criminologist. He argued that certain criminals have distinct physical characteristics that can be used to identify them. For example, he said that thieves and rapists have unique physical features. He also argued that criminality is inherited, and that people with a strong criminal tendency are born with certain physical characteristics. However, his argument was not based on clear statistical data and was criticized for being linked to eugenics and fascist ideology, and was eventually abandoned.
Neurocriminology deals with such sensitive and controversial topics, but unlike Lombroso’s time, current research discusses the possibility that the cause of crime lies in the brain and genes, rather than in an individual’s appearance. In other words, the difference between a person who commits a crime and a person who does not is due to the differences in their brain structure. According to Professor Adrian Raine, author of “The Anatomy of Violence,” who has studied this field in depth, the fact that the causes of crime should be sought in biological factors rather than environmental factors has been underestimated.
In fact, studies have shown that many criminals have palm lines that show less-evolved characteristics or have specific genetic mutations. For example, Monoamine Oxidase A (MAOA) gene mutations are often found in the families of criminals. If this enzyme is deficient, it cannot properly produce neurotransmitters that affect aggression, which can promote antisocial behavior. In addition, people with damage to the frontal lobe often have trouble controlling their impulses. The area of the brain damaged in Phineas Gage’s accident was also the frontal lobe. A study analyzing the brains of 41 murderers found that the activity of the anterior prefrontal cortex was significantly lower. These various biological factors, especially the link between brain damage and crime, suggest a possibility worth considering. However, some social scientists believe that environmental factors, such as the family environment and the process of growing up, have a greater impact on crime than biological factors.
The majority of people recognize that environmental factors have a significant impact on crime, and it is true that they actually account for a large proportion. However, contrary to this perception, there are also cases where the environment does not have a significant impact. For example, there is the case of Jeffrey Landrigan, who was adopted by a peaceful family and received a good education, but continued to commit crimes. He met Darren Hill, a criminal who looked exactly like him in prison, and it became a hot topic when it was revealed that he was his biological father.
If so, should we focus more on environmental or biological factors as the cause of crime? Until now, most societies have believed that environmental factors cause crime. In fact, most of the psychopaths and serial killers we come across have grown up in an unhappy family environment and have often experienced traumatic events as children. Also, if biological factors are recognized as the main cause of crime, it can be interpreted as meaning that criminals are born with it from the beginning, which can be linked to human rights issues, so biological factors have often been ignored.
However, recently, there has been an increasing number of studies that argue that attention should be paid to biological factors. As violent crimes are increasing in modern society, prevention has become more important than responding to crimes after they occur, and identifying the causes of crime has become a key task for this. Prevention based on environmental factors has its limitations, so biological factors should also be considered. The idea is not to scan everyone’s brain and isolate those with a high probability of committing a crime, but to open up the possibility of introducing brain tests for crime prevention. In his book, Professor Adrian Lane argues that a crime prediction algorithm that includes both genetic and environmental factors will be able to predict the probability of committing a crime with a probability of 70% or more by 2030.
We should no longer view this issue simply as a human rights issue. A great deal of research and evidence has already been accumulated, and logical research is being conducted to support this. Of course, just because a biological factor increases the likelihood of committing a crime, it does not mean that the person will commit a crime. For example, some studies have shown that a lack of monoamines can lead to antisocial behavior, but there are also people who show antisocial tendencies without this trait, and some have even overcome it through environmental factors. However, this very point should be taken into account when predicting and preventing crime. For people with high biological factors, the possibility of improvement through environmental factors should be greatly opened up.
One of the reasons why social scientists oppose the prediction of crime based on biological factors is the fear that environmental factors may be neglected. If crime prediction relies solely on biological factors, important environmental factors such as racism and domestic violence may be marginalized. However, even if there are such concerns, a more systematic response will be possible through a balanced crime prediction algorithm that comprehensively considers both biological and environmental factors. Rather than making a judgment based solely on the brain structure of a criminal, it should be comprehensively analyzed along with environmental factors and used for prediction. If a crime prediction algorithm that reflects environmental and biological factors in a balanced manner is introduced in the real world, it is expected to have a preventive effect.
The brain and crime are two different but deeply related concepts. We need to identify the relationship between these two concepts more systematically and use it to prevent actual crime. Although there are limitations in terms of human rights issues and 100% unpredictability, there is a possibility of a safer society if we strengthen the correlation between crime and the brain, which is the subject of neurocriminology. If the people around you have brains that are more likely to commit crimes, it would be better to take preventive environmental measures rather than overlook them. The important thing is not to rely entirely on this prediction. Humans are predictable, but they also have an unpredictable side. Fundamentally, it is important to create an environment in which crimes are less likely to occur, and we hope that this will lead to a better society.
