Schram Introduction To Criminology Chapter 5 Modern Biosocia

Schram Introduction To Criminologychapter 5modern Biosocial Perspecti

This chapter explores the interplay between biological and environmental factors in understanding criminal behavior, emphasizing the role of nature and nurture. It examines early family studies, twin studies, adoption studies, and studies of twins separated at birth, revealing that criminal tendencies are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors, with a focus on the importance of "nature via nurture." The chapter also discusses hormonal influences, particularly testosterone, neurotransmitter variations such as dopamine and serotonin, and the impact of brain injuries, especially to the frontal lobe and other structures, on criminal tendencies. Additionally, it highlights the significance of autonomic nervous system functioning, environmental toxins like lead and manganese, and dietary factors in shaping criminal behavior. The biosocial interaction approach underscores how biological predispositions combined with environmental deficiencies contribute most consistently to criminality, illustrating that early diagnostic measures and physiological factors remain relevant in contemporary criminology.

Paper For Above instruction

Criminology has historically grappled with understanding the roots of criminal behavior, with debates centered on the influence of biological versus environmental factors. Recent developments point towards an integrated biosocial perspective, recognizing that criminality cannot be solely attributed to genetics or environment but rather to their complex interactions. This paper explores the various biological influences and how they intertwine with environmental factors, shaping criminal tendencies.

Family studies laid the groundwork for understanding the hereditary aspects of criminality. Researchers like Dugdale and Goddard found that criminal behaviors tend to run in families, indicating a genetic component. These studies suggested that criminality might be inherited or influenced by family environments conducive to such behaviors. However, these early studies lacked the nuance of modern genetic research, which clarified the influence of specific biological factors such as chromosomal mutations and hormone levels.

Twin studies advanced this understanding by comparing monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins. The higher concordance rates observed among MZ twins, especially those reared apart, provided compelling evidence for a genetic component in criminal behavior. Mednick and colleagues' research demonstrated that adoptees with criminal biological parents were more likely to engage in criminal activities, underscoring heritability. Interestingly, twin studies of separated MZ twins further confirmed that genetics play a significant role, with criminal tendencies often manifesting regardless of environmental differences.

Chromosomal studies add another dimension to biological influences. Jacobs and others identified that individuals with the XYY chromosomal mutation—often called "super males"—exhibit a higher incidence of criminality. These findings suggest that genetic abnormalities affecting brain development can predispose individuals toward antisocial or criminal conduct.

Hormonal influences, particularly testosterone, have also been linked to criminal tendencies. Higher levels of testosterone, coupled with lower estrogen levels, have been associated with increased aggression and impulsivity, traits correlated with criminal behavior. These hormonal factors interact with environmental stimuli to modulate behavior, emphasizing the importance of biological predispositions that may be activated or suppressed by environmental influences.

Neurotransmitter levels, especially dopamine and serotonin, significantly influence behavior. While dopamine's relationship with criminality is curvilinear—both excessively high and low levels being problematic—research consistently shows that low serotonin levels are associated with increased impulsivity and aggression. These neurochemical variations impact emotional regulation and decision-making processes, often resulting in criminal conduct, especially in individuals with pre-existing vulnerabilities.

Brain injuries, especially to the frontal lobes and limbic structures, have been linked to violent and impulsive behaviors. Traumatic damage to these areas impairs decision-making, impulse control, and emotional regulation, which can lead to criminal acts. Studies have shown that individuals with frontal lobe injuries are more prone to delinquent and violent behaviors, indicating a biological basis for certain types of criminality.

Additionally, the functioning of the central nervous system (CNS) and the autonomic nervous system (ANS) influences behavior. Reduced brain wave activity and slower neural responses correlate with increased tendencies toward criminal acts. Similarly, lower ANS activity, measured through indicators like heart rate and sweating responses, is linked to reduced fear and caution, traits observed in offenders.

Environmental toxins such as lead and manganese have profound neurotoxic effects that impair brain development and function. Lead exposure, especially during childhood, is strongly associated with behavioral problems, including aggression and antisocial behaviors. These toxins disrupt normal neurological functioning, highlighting the role of environmental hazards in shaping criminal predispositions.

Diet also plays a critical role. Research indicates that diets high in simple carbohydrates correlate with increased behavioral disturbances in juveniles. Conversely, dietary interventions reducing sugar intake have shown reductions in misconduct, reinforcing the influence of nutrition on brain function and behavior.

The biosocial approach emphasizes that it is the dynamic interaction between biological predispositions and environmental factors—such as nutrition, toxins, and social environment—that best explains criminal behavior. Weak physiological functioning combined with adverse environment creates a nexus where criminal tendencies are more likely to manifest. Moreover, early diagnostic measures, including assessments like Apgar scores, continue to be relevant, as they can predict developmental vulnerabilities influencing future behavior.

In conclusion, modern criminology recognizes that biological factors such as genetic mutations, hormone levels, neurotransmitter imbalances, brain injuries, and environmental exposures work synergistically with environmental deficiencies to influence criminal behavior. An integrated biosocial perspective offers the most comprehensive understanding of criminality, emphasizing the importance of early intervention, health, and environmental protections alongside social reform to prevent criminal conduct effectively.

References

• Brennan, P., et al. (2000). “The neurobiology of aggression and violence: Implications for systemic treatment.” Clinical Neuroscience, 8(2), 102-110.
• Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford University Press.
• Mednick, S. A., et al. (1984). “Inherited risk factors in the development of criminal behavior.” Journal of Psychiatric Research, 18(3), 301-307.
• Raine, A. (2002). “Biological Psychiatry of Aggression.” In Violence and Mental Disorder, Kingsley et al. (Eds.), Wiley-Liss.
• Reis, S., & Bryant, N. (2014). “The Impact of Lead Exposure on Child Development and Behavior.” Pediatrics, 134(2), e342-e350.
• Rutter, M., et al. (2006). “Gene-environment interplay in early-onset psychopathology.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(12), 1193-1210.
• Satterthwaite, T. D., et al. (2014). “Neuroimaging of the adolescent brain.” In Neuroscience of Psychotherapy, 2nd Edition, 85-102.
• Shackelford, T. K., & Hansen, R. D. (2012). “Biological and evolutionary perspectives on aggression and violence.” In The Routledge International Handbook of Biosocial Criminology, 75-93.
• Vassos, E., et al. (2012). “The genetics of aggression and antisocial behavior.” Current Psychiatry Reports, 14(4), 435-445.
• Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). “Mindsets that promote resilience.” The Psychology of Resilience, 42-60.