SAC4012-B Criminological Theory

Sample Answer

Introduction

The question of whether violent criminal behaviour stems primarily from genetic factors or is shaped by environmental influences has long been debated in criminological theory. The statement that "violent criminals are the product of their genetic make-up" implies a deterministic view that biology plays a dominant role in the development of violent behaviour. This essay critically explores the validity of this claim, examining the extent to which genetic make-up can account for violent crime. Drawing upon classical and contemporary biological theories, alongside psychological and sociological perspectives, the essay aims to establish a balanced understanding of the nature versus nurture debate in the context of violent offending.

Biological Positivism and the Genetic Basis of Crime

Early criminological thought, particularly the work of Cesare Lombroso in the 19th century, laid the foundation for biological explanations of crime. Lombroso believed that criminals could be identified through physical abnormalities and that criminality was an inherited trait. Although his methods are now considered scientifically flawed and ethically questionable, his emphasis on biology sparked ongoing interest in the genetic roots of criminality.

In the 20th and 21st centuries, advances in genetics and neuroscience have reignited interest in the biological underpinnings of violent behaviour. Twin and adoption studies have consistently found higher concordance rates for criminal behaviour among monozygotic (identical) twins compared to dizygotic (fraternal) twins. For instance, studies by Christiansen (1977) found that if one identical twin engaged in criminal activity, the other was more likely to do so, even if raised apart. Such findings suggest a genetic component to criminal behaviour.

Moreover, modern behavioural genetics research has identified specific genes associated with aggressive or impulsive behaviour. The monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene, often referred to in the media as the “warrior gene,” has been linked to increased aggression and antisocial behaviour, especially when combined with childhood maltreatment (Caspi et al., 2002). Individuals with low-activity variants of the MAOA gene are thought to have impaired ability to regulate neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin, which are involved in mood regulation and impulse control.

The Role of Neuroscience and Brain Structure

Advances in neuroscience have also contributed to the biological explanation of violent behaviour. Brain imaging studies show that abnormalities in the prefrontal cortex and amygdala, regions responsible for decision-making, emotional regulation, and aggression, are common in violent offenders. For instance, Raine et al. (1997) found that murderers pleading not guilty by reason of insanity had reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex. These findings support the notion that violent tendencies may have a biological basis in brain function and structure.

Additionally, traumatic brain injuries (TBI), particularly those affecting the frontal lobes, have been associated with increased aggression and poor impulse control. Famous cases like that of Phineas Gage demonstrate how brain damage can radically alter personality and behaviour, sometimes in violent directions.

Critique of the Genetic Determinism Argument

Despite compelling biological evidence, attributing violent criminality solely to genetic make-up is overly simplistic and potentially dangerous. First, the presence of a particular gene or brain abnormality does not guarantee violent behaviour. Not all individuals with low MAOA activity or prefrontal deficits engage in crime. In fact, many lead law-abiding lives, suggesting that biology is only one part of a much more complex puzzle.

Second, the deterministic view fails to consider the significant role of environmental and social influences. Childhood abuse, poverty, peer pressure, lack of education, and exposure to violence are all strongly associated with criminal behaviour. The interactionist perspective in criminology, which combines elements of biological, psychological, and sociological theory, provides a more comprehensive framework for understanding criminality.

Caspi et al.’s (2002) landmark study demonstrates this interplay clearly: individuals with the low-activity MAOA gene variant were significantly more likely to engage in antisocial behaviour only if they had also experienced childhood maltreatment. This gene-environment interaction shows that biological predispositions must be activated or triggered by external factors. Therefore, violent behaviour cannot be solely attributed to genetic make-up.

Sociological Perspectives on Crime

Sociological theories emphasise environmental and structural factors in explaining violent crime. For instance, Robert Merton’s strain theory argues that crime results from the pressure placed on individuals to achieve socially accepted goals through illegitimate means when legitimate means are inaccessible. Likewise, social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) posits that individuals learn violent behaviour by observing and imitating others, especially if those behaviours are rewarded.

Subcultural theories, such as those proposed by Cohen (1955) and Cloward & Ohlin (1960), also highlight the role of peer groups and cultural norms in shaping criminal behaviour. These perspectives suggest that violent crime can often be a learned response to social conditions rather than a result of inherited traits.

Furthermore, labelling theory (Becker, 1963) suggests that being labelled as a criminal can reinforce deviant identity and behaviour, particularly for young people. This sociological approach focuses not on the individual`s biology but on the societal reaction and its role in perpetuating criminal behaviour.