Can neurocriminology prevent future crimes, or will it remain a dangerous endeavor that crosses the boundaries of human rights and ethics?

Neurocriminology attempts to predict criminals based on their genetic and physical characteristics, but it can lead to human rights violations and ethical issues. Since crime is more influenced by environment and free will than genetics, it is argued that the focus should be on post-mortem analysis rather than crime prevention.

 

In the movie Minority Report, three prophets predict future criminals and arrest them through majority rule-based predictions. The film’s theme of stopping potential future criminals consistently raises the moral dilemma of “can you hold someone accountable for a crime that hasn’t happened yet?” This question is amplified when the targets of the prophecies are the film’s protagonists. The fatalistic contradiction of a crime being predicted by the majority rule and a person’s life being determined by three prophets in a technologically advanced 2050s setting may seem like cinematic fiction, but something similar is happening in real life. This is where neurocriminology comes in.
Criminology is the study of the causes and development of crime and the search for ways to prevent it. It’s a field of study that includes psychology, sociology, law, and police administration, but neurocriminology is the study of the link between human genetic expression and crime. Neurocriminologists argue that the underlying motivation for crime stems from abnormal brain development, either congenital or acquired, and from an evolutionary perspective. By analyzing the brain development and physical characteristics of criminals, they aim to build a database to prevent future crimes from occurring. Furthermore, the goal is to create a crime-free world by eliminating genetic traits associated with crime.
Neurocriminology traces its origins to Cesare Lombroso, a 19th-century Italian psychologist and prison physician who argued for a link between the shape of the human skull and crime, believing that a criminal’s brain structure and physical characteristics indicate criminal tendencies. Lombroso dissected the brains of murderers and found abnormalities in the cerebellum, which led him to conclude that neural cues similar to those in evolutionarily less developed brains could indicate potential criminals. This work was later developed further by Canadian criminologist James Hilborn, who coined the term “neurocriminology.
When faced with these theories, neurocriminology may seem like an innovative and scientific solution that could eradicate future crimes. However, these expectations are unrealistic, and neurocriminological research has many limitations, as the human brain is highly sensitive to its external environment. For example, palmistry and brain comparisons are a prime example of neurocriminological research, which lacks a scientific basis for categorizing people as potential criminals. For example, the shape of a person’s palm or certain patterns in the brain may simply indicate personality or traits, but they are not directly linked to criminality. Furthermore, any judgment that overlooks physical characteristics or acquired brain damage, which are highly influenced by the external environment, is bound to be inaccurate.
The biggest problem with neurocriminology is the potential for human rights violations. Identifying people with similar physical and genetic characteristics to criminals as potential criminals and constantly monitoring their lives can lead to an invasion of privacy. In the absence of clear evidence that these characteristics are necessarily linked to criminality, it is extremely dangerous to stigmatize people who would never commit a crime. It is also difficult to establish clear criteria for classifying people as potential criminals. Without clear criteria for what percentage of similarity to criminals should be present, or how to prioritize multiple factors when they overlap, neurocriminology is difficult to apply. Furthermore, pre-emptively eliminating fetuses with genes linked to criminality is ethically controversial. Such an approach would risk violating human dignity and would be socially unacceptable.
Furthermore, the application of neurocriminology would require human resources for care and observation. For example, if a large number of people are categorized as potential criminals based on the shape of their palm or certain physical characteristics, it may be impractical and inefficient to devote the manpower and resources to monitor them. It would be much more effective to invest in the current police force and crime prevention facilities.
One of the most important factors that contribute to crime is social factors. Since neurocriminology only focuses on genetic and physical traits, it is difficult to prevent crime due to social factors. Crime is often driven by the environment in which an individual lives, which is heavily socially influenced apart from genetic traits. *As Michael S. Gazzaniga, author of Who’s In Charge? notes, even psychopaths with the most antisocial tendencies are unlikely to commit a crime in the presence of a police officer. This shows that criminality is not simply a genetic factor, but rather a free-will act in a social context, and it would be far more effective to strengthen social policing and create an atmosphere that discourages crime than to invest resources recklessly in searching for potential criminals.
Of course, neurocriminology has made significant contributions to analyzing the causes of crime. By studying the correlation between a criminal’s neurological traits and their crimes, it has helped us understand the behavior of violent criminals and has contributed to the identification of characteristics of people with antisocial tendencies. However, the idea that physical genes cause crime is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for criminality. Neurocriminology is merely a tool for analyzing the causes of certain crimes after they have occurred, and it has limitations when it comes to preventing crime.
We should also be wary of the potential for neurocriminology to be abused. There is a risk that someone who commits a crime because of a genetic defect will use that defect as a defense to reduce their sentence, or even substitute psychiatric treatment for punishment. In this case, there is also the possibility that the offender with the genetic defect will continue to commit crimes. Therefore, neurocriminology should focus less on crime prevention and more on the edification and rehabilitation of offenders.
After all, humans are born with different genetic traits, and their behavior is highly dependent on their free will and environment. Neurocriminology should focus on analyzing the causes of crime based on human free will and social control. Crime prevention should be aimed at strengthening human free will and social responsibility, and neurocriminology should play a supporting role in this process.