Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
What Makes a Criminal? (Biological) - Coggle Diagram
What Makes a Criminal? (Biological)
Physiological and non-physiological explanations of criminal behaviour
Physiological explanations of criminal behaviour
Looking at antisocial behaviour and aggressiveness
Hormones and criminal activity:
Cortisol and testosterone are most intensively researched hormones in relation to antisocial behaviour
Glenn and Raine (2014) -> disrupted functioning of hypothalamus and release of cortisol is often seen in antisocial individuals
Low levels of cortisol in childhood predicts aggressive behaviour 5 years layer in adolescence
Increased testosterone = increased aggression, especially in 10-12 year olds can predict physical assaults in 12-14 year olds
High levels at 16 predict crime in adulthood
Low resting heart rate and criminal behaviour:
Choy et al (2017) -> low resting heart rate is early biological marker for gender gap in later criminal behaviour
Sample of 894, 17% gender difference in crimes such as violence/drug-related crime
Genes and criminal behaviour:
Twin studies showed significant genetic basis to antisocial behaviour. Genetic influence up to 60%
Han Brunner et al (1993) -> 5 members of Dutch family diagnosed with borderline mental retardation and showed violent behaviour including attempted rape, impulsive aggression, arson
Urine/blood samples found deficiency in activity of MAOA, all males had mutation in gene
Concluded MAOA mutation causes aggression
Brain dysfunction and criminal behaviour:
Limbic system is complex set of structures
Damage to limbic system can result in abnormal emotional responses, deficits in learning, memory, attention
Damage to amygdala causes impulsive aggressiveness
Damage to hippocampus causes impulse activity
Damage to thalamus causes combativeness
Damage to corpus callosum causes violent crime
Damage to prefrontal cortex causes less self control and more aggression
Damage to angular gyrus causes reduced functioning
Non-physiological explanations of criminal behaviour
Social explanation: Families:
Focus on influence of other people such as parents on criminal behaviour
Farrington (2006) -> criminal behaviour influenced by family life such as parental criminality/absence
411 males from working class inner city London first studied at 8 yrs until 48 yrs
Asked about living circumstances/leisure activities
Also tested at school for attainment and intelligence
Parent interviews conducted with psychiatric social workers -> incomes, attitudes to discipline, separations from son
8-10yrs risk factors for later offending measures of family criminality, loss of mother, low school attainment, poverty, poor parenting
Social explanation: Norms:
Sutherland 91947) proposed differential association theory -> criminal behaviour learned through interaction with others
Frequency and intensity of interaction with people with pro-criminal attitudes important for Sutherland
Akers et al (1979) -> 68% variance in marijuana use of 2500 American adolescents could be association and reinforcement of peers
Cognitive explanations:
Focus on level of moral development and lack of moral reasoning shown by criminals
Kohlberg (1984) not applied to criminal behaviour but can show how lack of moral reasoning explains crime
Behaviour governed by whether outcome is good/ bad for individual, not societal views
Palmer and Hollin (1998) -> compared moral reasoning of male delinquents and male/female non-delinquents
Delinquents have less mature moral reasoning
Raine et al (1997) on Murderers
Background and aims
Violent offenders have poorer brain functioning
Improved PET scans enable localisation of brain areas linked with dysfunction in violent offenders
Hypothesis:
Seriously violent individuals have localised brain dysfunction in following areas: prefrontal cortex, angular gyrus, amygdala, hippocampus, thalamus and corpus callosum
Method
Design:
Quasi experiment -> IV = murderer or not, DV = activity in specific brain regions
Matched participants
Sample:
41 murderers, 39 male, 2 female, mean age 34.3 years
Charged with murder or manslaughter and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) or incompetence to stand trial
Schizophrenia (6), brain injury (23), psychoactive drug abuse (3), affective disorder (2), epilepsy (2), hyperactivity or learning disability (3), personality disorder (2)
Control with no mental illness matched by age and sex
Schizophrenia matched with schizophrenia
Medication free two weeks prior to study
Procedure
Consent forms approved by Human Subjects Committee of the University of California
Ps required to work for 32 minutes on a continuous performance task (CPT) based on target recognition
CPT designed to work areas of brain that were to be studied to monitor level of function
Ps able to practise CPT 10 mins before glucose tracer (fluorodeoxyglucose or FDG) injected so novelty of talk not labelled by FDG
32 mins after injection, PET scan took 10 slices at 10mm intervals of (sub)cortial regions of the brain
Materials:
Thermoplastic head holder modelled to each p
CPT involved ps looking for targets and pressing button when found
PET scan to study active brain
Results
Brain differences:
Murderers have reduced activity in prefrontal cortex, left angular gyrus, corpus callosum
Reduced activity in amygdala, thalamus, hippocampus in left hemisphere
High activity in cerebellum, amygdala, thalamus, hippocampus in right hemisphere
Behavioural performance on CPT:
No difference
Other differences not previously matched:
Handedness -> 6 murderers were LH, less amygdala symmetry, higher medial prefrontal in RH
Ethnicity -> 14 non-white murderers, no difference compared to white
Head injury -> no difference
Conclusions
Murderers pleading NGRI function differently to normal
Neural processes underlying violence are complex and cannot be reduced to single brain mechanism
Social, physiological, cultural, situational factors play role in predisposition to violence
Brain dysfunction may be effect of violence
Results relate only to criminal behaviour
Results show link between brain dysfunction and predisposition towards violence in NGRI group
Biological strategies for preventing criminal behaviour
Drug treatments
Psychopharmacology:
Study of effects of drugs on mental disorders
Drugs either made of plants/animals or chemicals
Drugs interact with specific receptors to induce change in behaviour
Mental illness associated with malfunction in nervous system, may help prevent associated criminal behaviour
How antipsychotic drugs work:
Antipsychotics block dopamine
occupy postsynaptic receptor sites (D2)
Reduce activity in postsynaptic neuron
Reduced dopamine = less activity in mesolimbic pathway = decrease in positive symptoms of schizophrenia
An example of an antipsychotic drug - Clozapine:
Second generation, atypical antipsychotic for severe schizophrenia
Blocks D2 receptors and 5-HT2A receptors (seratonin)
Treats positive/negative schizophrenia symptoms
Should be kept in blister pack until taken with full glass of water
Initial does 12.5mg once or twice a day, max dose 900mg a day
Nutritional supplements
Diet has important bearing on aggression and criminal behaviour (Zaalberg et al 2010)
Low omega-3 limits regulation of limbic system
Example of a nutritional supplement regime for prisoners:
Nutritional supplements contain 1 vitamin/mineral, 4 fatty acid
Everyday, pack labelled with prisoner's name, cell and prison number, given at lunchtime
Omega-3 to be taken 4 times a day and vit/min at lunch
Supplement dosages match recommended intake
Everyday for 1 month
Consumed under watch of guards to ensure compliance
Evaluation
Nature/nurture
Nature:
Physiological -> resting heart rate, different brain structures
Innate structures that make them criminals
Nurture:
Living in poverty (non-physiological), Farrington (2006), socialised to believe crime is only way of getting by
Interactionist:
Not everyone in poverty turns to crime, other factors must be playing a part
Freewill/determinism
Freewill:
Criminal justice system based on belief that all and every behaviour is a choice
People born with low resting heart rate, not everyone will be a criminal
Hard determinism:
Any biological explanation/physiological -> criminal behaviour outside of individual's control
Soft determinism:
Living in poverty/disadvantaged areas, doesn't mean everyone will, some element of freewill
Reductionism/holism
Reductionist:
All biological are reductionist
Fail to take into account social context that criminal behaviour takes place in
Sutherland (1947) -> others influence criminal behaviour
Holistic:
Farrington (2006) -> different types of reasons that become causes for criminal behaviour
Individual/Situational
Individual:
Mix of nature/nurture -> upbringing/biological factors/personality
Situational:
Given opportunity to commit crime, currently being in poverty, going through break up, etc
Interactionist:
Characteristics that make us likely to behave in criminal way, only will do so if opportunity arises
Usefulness
Useful:
Lots of interventions can be placed to prevent crime
If biological, crime can be prevented
Social factors -> more police (e.g)/more investment
Give appropriate defence for certain situations -> rehabilitation
Not useful:
Not realistic to solve all these behaviours
Ethical considerations
Ethical:
Strict because of radioactive substance used in PET scan -> informed consent
Not ethical:
Harm could have been caused to experimental group -> if found out about brain difference -> psychological harm/distress
Conducting socially sensitive research
Sensitive:
Those who break the law choose to do so, if causes of crime are out of person's control -> undermines criminal justice system
Not sensitive:
Could lead to changes in system
Psychology as a science
Science:
PET scans are objective
Not scientific:
Can't establish cause and effect
Small sample of caught murderers -> bias -> not valid
Validity
Valid:
Objectivity of PET scans
Not valid:
Can't generalise
Low in population validity
Ethnocentrism
Ethnocentric:
Criminal behaviour is culturally relative -> changes often and isn't fixed -> Farrington (causes for criminal behaviour based on UK nuclear family)
Not ethnocentric:
Species specific -> no cultural bias implied
Reliability
Reliable:
Standardised machines for scans
Replicable with non-murdering criminals
Sampling bias
Bias:
Only murderers, NGRI
No bias:
Physiological difference -> species specific