Explanations of Offending- Biological, Biopsychosocial (Forensic Psychology) Flashcards
Atavistic form
a biological approach to offending that attributes criminal activity to the fact that offenders are genetic throwbacks or a primitive subspecies ill-suited to conforming to the rules of modern society. Such individuals are distinguishable by particular facial and cranial characteristics
Atavistic characteristics
• Lombroso (1876) theorised that criminals could be identified by physiological markers (physical characteristics) mainly on the face and head
• other signs of criminality: insensitivity to pain, tattoos, unemployments, use of slang
Lombroso’s characteristics of criminals
Cranial:
• narrow, sloping brow
• a strong, prominent jaw
• high cheekbones
• facial asymmetry
-other features are:
• dark skin
• extra toes, nipples or fingers
Lombroso’s research
Lombroso examined cranial and facial features of living and dead criminals:
• 383 dead and 3839 living criminals (skulls)
• concluded that 40% of all criminal acts should be accounted for by people with atavistic characteristics
Variations of Atavistic Form: features and associated crimes
• murderers were thought to have bloodshot eyes, strong jaws, long ears and curly hair
• sexual deviants were said to have glinting eyes, swollen, fleshy lips and projecting ears
• fraudsters lips were thin and reedy
(Evaluation of Atavistic Form) Support for Lombroso
-shifted the emphasis in crime research away from moralistic discourse towards a scientific and credible realm
-the atavistic characteristics were the foundation of criminal profiling
-Hollin (1989)
(Evaluation of Atavistic Form) Scientific racism
DeLisi (2012) - pointed out distinct racial undertones
-many of the features identified by Lombroso are more likely to be found among people of African descent
-lends support to the Eugenics movement, ‘uncivilised, primitive and savage’
(Evaluation of Atavistic Form) evidence against Lombroso
there is limited support to the argument of ‘sub-species’ in terms of lower intelligence
Sharma et al. (2015) - 202 participants (101 convicted offenders and 101 ‘normal’ controls)
-emotional intelligence and criminal behaviour considered
-criminals did score lower on EI domains including management of own and others’ emotions
Goring (1913)
-3000 criminals and 3000 non-criminals
-considered physical or mental abnormalities
-no evidence that offenders are a distinctive group with unusual facial or cranial features/characteristics
(Evaluation of Atavistic Form) methodological criticisms
Lombroso did not compare his sample to a non-criminal control group
- significant difference may have disappeared
-failed to account for other variables: people he studied had a history of psychological disorders or chromosomal abnormalities- confounding variable
(Evaluation of Atavistic Form) causation
facial and cranial differences may be influenced by other factors such as poverty or poor diet rather than being an indication of delayed evolutionary development
in later work, the view was less extreme: criminals could be made as well as born due to a range of environmental factors
Neural explanation
any explanation of behaviour (and its disorders) in terms of (dys)functions of the brain and nervous system. This includes the activity of brain structures such as the hypothalamus and neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine.
• evidence suggests there may be neural differences in the brains of criminals and non-criminals
• most of this research in this area has investigated individuals diagnosed with Antisocial personality disorder (psychopathy)
• APD- reduced emotional responses and a lack of empathy for others
Crowe 1972
Crowe (1972) compared a group of adopted children whose biological mother had a criminal record to a control group of adopted children whose biological mother did not have a criminal record
• it was found that if a biological mother had a criminal record, 50% of the adopted children also had one by the time they were 18
• in the control group, only 5% of the adopted children had a criminal record by the time they were 18
• this suggests that regardless of the changed environment, the adopted children whose mothers had criminal records seemed biologically predisposed to criminality
Brunner et al. 1993, large family in the Netherlands
• anti-social and criminal behaviour: rape, arson, and exhibitionsim (paraphilia)
• ‘Brunner Syndrome’- genetic condition
• lower IQ: family average IQ of 85
• causes a deficiency in MAOA- enzyme responsible for the metabolism of serotonin
Candidate gene: Tiihonen et al. 2014
• genetic analysis of 900 Finnish offenders
-MAOA:
• controls dopamine and serotonin
• link with aggression
-CDH13 (protein coding):
• linked to substance abuse and attention deficit disorder
-Conclusion:
• individuals with abnormalities on both of the genes were 13 times more likely to have a history of violent behaviour
—>consider cause and effect: is it because of these or is it more to do with substance abuse
Jacobs et al. 1965
found a higher percentage of people from a prison population had the atypical sex chromosome pattern XYY
• led to increased testosterone and increased violence
• however, people with this chromosomal abnormality are more likely to be hyperactive, impulsive and have a lower IQ which may explain their criminality
Diathesis Stress Model (Meehl, 1962; Ripke et al. 2014)
-link between genetic predisposition and biological and psychological trigger
• e.g., being raised in a dysfunctional environment or having a criminal role models
-diathesis- vulnerability , stress- negative psychological experience
-psychological trauma such as child abuse can affect the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal system (Ripke)
Prefrontal Cortex
• individuals who experience antisocial personality disorder show reduced activity in the PFC, the part of the brain that regulates emotional behaviour
• Raine (2000) found an 11% reduction in the volume of grey matter in the PFC of people with APD compared to control groups
Raine et al. 1997
• 41 NGR (not guilty for reasons of insanity) and 41 controls
• participants wore headphones and were instructed to press a button when they heard a beep. This involves concentration and should activate the prefrontal cortex
-Results of PET scans:
• prefrontal deficits can lead to someone being more impulsive and emotional (decrease activity in NGRIs)
• Amygdala- controls urges and desires (increase activity in NGRIs)
• Thalamus- processes information/aggression (increase activity in NGRIs)
• Corpus callosum- bridge of nerve fibres connecting the two hemispheres associated with long term planning (decrease activity in NGRIs)
Keysers et al. (2011)
Mirror neurones:
• found that only when criminals were asked to empathise with others (person being depicted on film experiencing pain), their empathy reactions was activated.
• this is controlled by mirror neurones. This suggests that APD individuals do experience empathy, although it is not an automatic response. These neurones fire in response to the actions of others.
Evaluation supporting candidate gene
Tiihonen et al. (2014)
• violent and non violent criminals
• 78 rated as extremely violent
• 1154 murders, manslaughters, attempted murders and batteries
• “warrior gene”- non-violent criminals did not have this
• alcohol and drug abuse is shown to cause hyperactivity in dopamine levels
• all extremely violent criminals had consumed drugs or alcohol before committing their crimes
Evaluation supporting diathesis stress model
• Mednick et al. (1984) Danish adoptees study
• genetic inheritance plays a role as do environmental influence
Evaluation against twin studies
• Lange (1930)- study was poorly controlled and judgements related to zygosity were based on appearance and not DNA testing
• studies with twins use small sample sizes and may not represent the whole population
• confounding variable: most twins are reared in the same environment
• concordance rate may be due to shared learning experiences and not genetics
Evaluation against adoption studies
• late adoption would mean that infancy and childhood would have been spent with biological parents
• regular contact with biological parents
• difficult to access to environmental impact the biological parents might have had
• criminality could be due to inherited emotional instability or mental illness (Andrew et Bonta 2006)
• Mednick et al. (1984) only petty offences not violent crimes
Evaluation against genetic and neural explanations
• criminality is complex and genetic and neural explanations are simplistic and inappropriate
• Katz et al. (2007) crime does run in families but so does emotional instability, social deprivation and poverty
-exposure to crime rather than poverty
• no study has found 100% concordance rate between MZ twins and often they have been low
Evaluation of biological determinism
• ‘criminal gene’
• presents ethical problems for our legal system since it negates free will
• raises the ethical question surrounding what society does with people who carry ‘criminal genes’
• presents problems for society and implications for sentencing
-‘the Mobley defence’
Coid et al (2009)
prevalence of APD in prison populations
• 496 prisoners in England and Wales, age range 16-64
• PCL-R and DSM-IV Axis
• 7.7% men scored 30 on PCL-R 1.9% women
• 44.8% women scored less than 5
-younger men, repeated imprisonment, detention in high security, substance abuse
• narcissistic, conduct disorders, histrionic and schizoid personalities
• results indicated no individuals with anxiety, OCD, phobias, borderline personality disorder, brain disorders and schizophrenia
• significant results for cannabis use, sedatives, cocaine, solvents and alcohol (so this is the more likely explanation)
Hans Eysenck general
-Hans Eysenck 1947: The Eysenck Personality Inventory
• a form of psychological test which locates respondents along the E (extraversion) and N (neuroticism) dimensions to determine their personality type
Psychotic: insensitive, unconventional and lacks conscience
Neurotic: nervous, anxious and obsessive
Extrovert: sociable, impulsive, expressive and risk taking
Introvert: cautious and happy in their own company
Biological Basis for the Criminal personality
• all personality types have an innate biological basis
• extraverts (under active nervous system) so constantly seek excitement and risk-taking behaviours
• introverts (overactive nervous system) so withdraw from too much stimulation
• neuroticism - linked to instability in the sympathetic nervous system (if high), unpredictable
• psychotism - higher levels of testosterone
The Criminal Personality
- Criminals will score highly in psychoticism
- neurotic-extravert personality type
- more likely to commit crimes based on emotion and will seek dangerous activities
• neuroticism= good indicator of criminal behaviour in older people
• extraversion= younger people
The Criminal Personality = Extraversion + Neuroticism + Psychotism
Process of Socialisation and the criminal personality
- criminal behaviour is associated with developmental immaturity, selfishness and concerned with immediate gratification
-process of socialisation is where children are taught to become able to delay gratification and become more socially oriented
• primarily taught through conditioning: when children act in an immature way, they are punished. They come to associate anxiety with antisocial behaviour
• where this process is successful, even thinking about behaving antisocially produces anxiety = avoid doing behaviours
• Eysenck believed that people with high E and N scores cannot be conditioned easily= act antisocially
Evidence for Eysenck’s theory of criminal personality
-Eysenck and Eysenck (1977)
• compared 2070 male prisoners scores on EPI with 2422 male controls
• they were sub-divided into age groups 16-69 years
• across all age groups prisoners recorded higher scores than controls for P, E and N
-Rushton and Christjohn (1981) compared E, N and P scores with self-reports of delinquency in children and students
• high levels of delinquency = higher E, P and N scores
Evaluation of criminal personality: inconsistent results
Farrington et al. (1982) meta analysis
• offenders reported high on P measures but not E and N
• little difference in EEG measures between introverts and extroverts
• research depends on the type of measurement used
• official offenders (Hollin 1989) - high in psychoticism and neuroticism but low in extraversion
• Putwain and Sammons 2002 suggested that results are inconsistent as extroversion scales measure two things: sociability and impulsiveness. Criminality is associated with impulsiveness but not sociability
Evaluation of criminal personality: single criminal type
• criticised for focusing on a particular criminal personality type
• Mofitt (1993)- variations depending upon timing of first offence and how long offending persists (adult male prisoners)
• Digman (1990) five factor model: updated model of personality- included further dimensions of openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness
• suggests the theory is reductionist
Evaluation of criminal personality: cultural bias
Bartol and Holanchock (1979)
• studied Hispanic and African-American prisoners in a high-security prison
• 6 groups - based on criminal history
• compared against a non-criminal control group
• all found to be less extravert than a non-criminal control group
• questions over generalisability
Evaluation of criminal personality: biological biases
• suffers from same limitations as genetic and neural explanations
• APD (antisocial personality disorder): Raine (1997/2000) brain structures and functions
• Eysenck- nervous system
• biologically deterministic
Hotwitt 2009
• biopsychosocial approach is commended
• however biopsychosocial theory tells us that rapists and child abusers are extravert, neurotic and psychotic but does not explain why they rape or abuse children
• if the criminal behaviour is detectable in childhood, could we modify the socialisation experiences?
• lead to interventions for parents or early treatment for delinquency/ reduction in criminal behaviour
