Neurocriminology: Can biological factors in the brain determine criminal behavior?

In 1848, Phineas Gage’s accident showed that brain damage can cause personality changes. Neurocriminology studies the influence of the brain and genes on criminal behavior, emphasizing the balance between biological and environmental factors.

 

On September 13, 1848, Phineas Gage, foreman of a crew of men blasting a large boulder in the Green Mountains of Vermont, was placing gunpowder in a hole in the rock. His job was to pour sand into the hole, light the fuse, and run to safety. On that day, the sand was not poured into the hole and the gunpowder ignited. Unfortunately, Phineas was not paying attention at the moment, and with a “bang!” an iron rod went through his head. Amazingly, however, Phineas survived and was saved by the efforts of Dr. Hall. The incident caught the attention of doctors. Not because he survived, but because Phineas’s personality changed 180 degrees after the accident. His normally jovial personality turned into a moody and violent young man. The brain injury caused the personality change. This demonstrated the possible connection between the biological factors of the brain and the psychological factors of personality.
Neuroscience is the discipline that studies these things. Neuroscience explores the various changes that occur after a brain injury. In particular, one branch of neuroscience, neurocriminology, studies the connection between brain damage and crime, and this article will focus on neurocriminology.
Neurocriminology began with an Italian criminologist named Cesare Lombroso, who argued that criminals can be recognized in the human mind, and that certain criminals, such as thieves and rapists, have distinct physical characteristics. Lombroso believed that criminality is inherited, and that inherited criminals have certain physical characteristics, but he did not have clear statistics on this, and ultimately his ideas were heavily criticized because they were linked to eugenics and fascism.
As you can see, neurocriminology is a sensitive and potentially dangerous subject. Lombroso’s ideas are very different from the current state of neurocriminology. Currently, it discusses the possibility that the root cause of crime may lie in the brain and genes, rather than in the mind, meaning that the difference between those who commit crimes and those who don’t stems from the brain. According to Professor Adrian Lane, author of the book Anatomy of Violence, which explores this area in detail, the brain is not completely responsible for crime, but it is underestimated compared to environmental factors.
In fact, criminals tend to have longer fingers at the top of the palm and a ring finger that’s longer than the index finger, which indicates less evolution. Another study found that there are more mutations in the Monoamine Oxidase A (MAOA) chromosome in criminal families than in the general population. A lack of monoamines in the brain can lead to antisocial behavior because the brain doesn’t produce enough neurotransmitters that affect aggression. In addition, people with damage to the frontal lobe are often unable to control their impulses. The frontal lobe is also the part of the brain that Phineas Gage damaged in his accident. One study found that the brains of 41 murderers had extremely low prefrontal cortex activation in common. The idea that many of these biological factors, especially the brain, are linked to crime seems plausible enough. However, many social scientists focus more on environmental factors, such as a criminal’s upbringing and life experiences, than biological factors.
Many people believe that environmental factors play a large role in crime, and they do. However, there are also studies that show that the environment doesn’t play a big role in crime. For example, there was a criminal named Jeffrey Landrigan, who was adopted into a stable family and had a good upbringing, but went on to steal and murder his friends. What’s surprising is that when Landrigan went to prison, he met a criminal who looked exactly like him: Darren Hill, Landrigan’s father.
So how do we balance the environmental and biological causes of crime? Most of the current thinking is that crime is driven by environmental issues. In fact, if you look at the cases of psychopaths and serial killers, most of them have had a poor upbringing and were traumatized by a major event in their childhood. Biological factors have also often been dismissed in the context of human rights issues because the idea that biology causes crime leads to the idea that some people are born criminals.
However, it is clear that biological factors should be given more weight than is currently recognized. In a modern world where violent crime is on the rise, we need to prevent crime from happening in the first place, not just clean up after it. To do this, we need to consider the causes of crime, and environmental causes have clear limitations. Therefore, we need to fully utilize biological factors. We’re not talking about scanning everyone’s brain and isolating those whose brain structure makes them more likely to commit crimes. We’re talking about the possibility of introducing brain tests to prevent crime. In his book, Professor Adrian Lane proposes a crime prediction that takes these factors into account. He believes that by 2030, criminality algorithms based on genetic research will be developed. He claims that if an algorithm is developed that analyzes not only biological factors such as brain and genes, but also environmental factors such as school records and medical records, it will predict crime with a probability of more than 70%.
Now, this issue should not be viewed simply through the lens of human rights. There’s plenty of evidence and research to back it up, and logical studies to back it up. Of course, just because a person’s biology predisposes them to commit a crime doesn’t mean they will. While some studies have shown that monoamine deficiency leads to antisocial behavior, others have not. Some people have similar biological factors to criminals, but they are overcome by environmental factors. But this is where crime prediction and prevention needs to be strengthened. People with high biological factors should have a greater chance of improving with environmental factors.
One of the reasons social scientists oppose biological prediction is that they fear it will reduce attention to environmental factors that drive crime, such as racism and domestic violence. If biological prediction of crime is systematically established and shows promise, environmental factors will be given less consideration. But this is not the case. We know that in many cases, neither biological nor environmental factors can reliably predict criminality. So it’s important to balance the two. Rather than simply looking at a criminal’s brain structure and assuming they are a criminal, it should be considered in conjunction with environmental factors. We need to look at whether the environment of a person with a criminal brain can trigger crime, and apply crime prediction algorithms that balance both factors to the real world.
Brain and crime are two different but related words. We need to find more connections between them and apply them to overcoming crime in the real world. There are a lot of human rights issues, and we can’t see 100% of the possibilities. However, if we can find a way to make the brain more relevant to crime, as neurocriminology is doing, we may be able to see a better society. Even if someone around you has a criminally predisposed brain, it’s better to be aware of it and prevent it from environmental factors than to overlook it. The important thing is to never rely on this crime prediction. People are as unpredictable as they are predictable. Fundamentally, it’s important for society to create an environment that makes it difficult for crime to occur. Taking all these things into account, let’s hope that we can become a better society.