Comportamiento Criminal

Is criminal behaviour primarily biologically based?

Criminal behaviour primarily lies on the hands of the individual, but it is true that if one has a background of criminality in the family, then one is more likely to be engaged in criminality in their later life. No individual is born a criminal, yet some factors such as brain abnormalities, genetics and neurochemical imbalances highlyaffect the probability of a person turning into a criminal. On the other hand, cognitive factors such as cognitive distortions and rational choice are also highly important in the “making” of a criminal. Also, socio-cultural factors such as labelling, self-fulfilling prophecy, poverty (socio economic class) and early trauma/abuse are contributing factors to criminal behaviour. In my opinion, althoughmany biological factors do influence in the chances of a person becoming a criminal, it is not the principal reason for criminal behaviour, as many other factors contribute to the development of criminality in an individual. These biological factors are not enough to cause violence, it is only when they are combined with cognitive and social risk factors that criminal behaviour occurs.

Forinstance, the study carried out by Christiansen (1977) on Danish twins proofs the MZ (monozygotic) male twins are 35% more likely to be engaged in criminal behaviour, while the result in DZ (dizygotic) male twins is only of 13%. On the female twin exploration, it was discovered that the percentages were of 21% por MZ (monozygotic) female twins, and of 8% in DZ (dizygotic) female twins. This, firstof all shows a very significant difference between male and female. This links to the theory about males being more likely to commit crimes due to their low level of Serotonin. Also, violent criminals are known to have a high level of testosterone, a principal hormone in men. Men are known to be responsible for the vast majority of crimes, so there is a significant gender difference in regards tocrime because of neurotransmitters and hormones.

Moreover, adoptive studies by Hutchings and Mednick (1975) researched on where the biological or adoptive father having a criminal record affected the chances of the son having one. The results were like this: 36.2% of sons with both fathers having a criminal record, would have a criminal record of their own. If the biological father only, had acriminal record, the percentage dropped to 21.4%.. But if the adoptive father only had a criminal record the figure dropped significantly to only 11.5%. This study show not only that the biological factor affected the son more, but also that because the study was made on fathers and sons, we once more come across the idea that men are more likely to be the ones engaging in criminal behaviour. Withthis study we can also see that environmental factors (such as the adoptive father being a criminal) affect the son too yet in a very low percentage.

Also, research has been made onto whether brain damage increases the “criminality factor”, and as a result it is known that the frontal lobe of the brain is crucial for decision making, which has to work hand by hand with emotions (controlled bythe limbic system). PET scans made by Blair et al. (1999) looked at convicted psychopaths’ brains, and it was revealed that impairment was present between the amygdala (responsible for emotional responses) and the frontal lobe. This carries significance on how the individual interacts with others and hence Blair argues that the impairment makes it difficult for the individual to moderate theemotional reactions he/she has. All of this reveals that because social relationships are difficult, the individual doesn’t develop properly the feeling of empathy or guilt, hence acting impulsively, regardless of the consequences. (If one does not have empathy, then one could care less about stabbing someone perhaps, and of course without guilt, one could go on a killing spree without feeling any...