Theories Evaluations

Criminological_Theories_Introduction_and_Evaluatio..._----_CHAPTER_3_BIOLOGICAL_AND_PSYCHOLOGICAL_THEORIES.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Theories Evaluations

CHAPTER 3

BIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES

Introduction

Social structural and social psychological theories, to be introduced and evaluated in later chapters, either ignore or specifically ex

clude biological or psychological factors in crime. This is not because such theories assume that biological and psychological factors play no part in human behavior or that individuals are all the same. They focus solely on the social factors in crime with the assumption that biological and personality variations among individuals are more or less within the normal range. Little or no criminal behavior is considered to be directly caused by abnormal physiology or abnormal psychology.

Traditional biological theories, on the other hand, take the opposite approach by focusing on anatomical, physiological, or genetic abnor malities within the individual which separate law-breakers into a dis tinctly different category of persons from the law-abiding majority. In turn, such theories ignore or downplay the effect of social environ mental factors in crime. Recent biological theorizing, which empha sizes biological variations within the normal range, has begun to include the interplay of biological, social, and psychological variables in crime and delinquency.

Psychoanalytic and personality theories recognize the effects of an individuals experiences, especially in early childhood, on ones emo tional adjustment and the formation of personality traits and types. But such factors are not viewed as the cause of criminal behavior. Criminal behavior results from abnormal emotional adjustment or personality traits residing within the individual.

CHAPTER 3

BIOLOGICALAND PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES

Introduction

Social structural and social psychological theories, to be introduced and evaluated in later chapters, either ignore or specifically ex

Psychoanalytic and personality theories recognize the effects of an individual's experiences, especially in early childhood, on one's emo tional adjustment and the formation of personality traits and types. But such factors are not viewed as the cause of criminal behavior. Criminal behavior results from abnormal emotional adjustment or personality traits residing within the individual.

Akers, Ronald L.. Criminological Theories : Introduction and Evaluation, Taylor & Francis Group, 1999. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/usf/detail.action?docID=1273212. Created from usf on 2023-03-02 13:31:08.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

36 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

Lombroso and Early Biological Theories

The classical school of criminology retained a virtual monopoly on the study of crime until the latter part of the nineteenth century. By the 1870s, the classical theory, which upheld the belief that persons ration ally calculate pleasure and pain during the exercise of free will to com mit or refrain from crime, began to give way to biological "positivism." This new theory proposed that crime is not a rationally reasoned be havior which will occur unless prevented by the proper threat of pun ishment, but rather is the result of inborn abnormalities. An individuals physical traits index a bodily constitution with an associated mental and psychological makeup that causes one to violate the rules of modern society. Rational decisions, the theory argues, have nothing to do with it. Although environmental conditions and situations can provoke or restrain criminal behavior, they do not cause the commission of a crime. While some normal persons may on occasion succumb to temptations and pressures to commit a crime, the real criminal is born with criminal traits and will always be at odds with civilized society. The early bio logical criminologists viewed criminals as a distinct set of people who were biologically inferior to law-abiding citizens or inherently defective in some way.

While society is certainly justified in punishing criminals for its own protection, the certainty or severity of punishment will have no effect on natural-born criminals, since their crimes are caused by an innate biological makeup which no law can affect. While the classical school of criminology was humanistic and focused on the crime itself, biologi cal positivism was scientific and concentrated on the individual crimi nal (see Wolfgang, 1972; Void and Bernard, 1986).

Lombroso's Theory of the Born Criminal The most important of the early biological theories, the one from

which nearly all other biological theories stem, was first introduced in 1876 by Cesare Lombroso in The Criminal Man. Lombroso revised and enlarged this original publication through five editions and published separate volumes on the causes and remedies of crime and of the female criminal (Lombroso, 1912; Wolfgang, 1972). Lombroso observed the physical characteristics (head, body, arms, and skin) of Italian prisoners and compared them to Italian soldiers. From these comparisons he concluded that criminals were physically different from law-abiding citizens and that these differences demonstrated the biological causes of criminal behavior.

Lombroso believed that certain physical features identified the con vict in prison as a "born criminal." The born criminal comes into the world with a bodily constitution that causes him to violate the laws of

36 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

Lombroso and Early Biological Theories

The classical school of criminology retained a virtual monopoly on the study of crime until the latter part of the nineteenth century. By the 1870s, the classical theory, which upheld the belief that persons ration ally calculate pleasure and pain during the exercise of free will to com mit or refrain from crime, began to give way to biological "positivism." This new theory proposed that crime is not a rationally reasoned be havior which will occur unless prevented by the proper threat of pun ishment, but rather is the result of inborn abnormalities. An individual's physical traits index a bodily constitution with an associated mental and psychological makeup that causes one to violate the rules of modem society. Rational decisions, the theory argues, have nothing to do with it. Although environmental conditions and situations can provoke or restrain criminal behavior, they do not cause the commission of a crime. While some normal persons may on occasion succumb to temptations and pressures to commit a crime, the real criminal is born with criminal traits and will always be at odds with civilized society. The early bio logical criminologists viewed criminals as a distinct set of people who were biologically inferior to law-abiding citizens or inherently defective in some way.

Lombroso's Theory of the Born Criminal The most important of the early biological theories, the one from

which nearly all other biological theories stem, was first introduced in 1876 by Cesare Lombroso in The Criminal Man. Lombroso revised and enlarged this original publication through five editions and published separate volumes on the causes and remedies of crime and of the female criminal (Lombroso, 1912; Wolfgang, 1972). Lombroso observed the physical characteristics (head, body, arms, and skin) ofItalian prisoners and compared them to Italian soldiers. From these comparisons he concluded that criminals were physically different from law-abiding citizens and that these differences demonstrated the biological causes of criminal behavior.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

37 Biological and Psychological Theories

modern society. The born criminal is an "atavism/' Lombroso theo rized, a throwback to an earlier stage of human evolution. He has the physical makeup, mental capabilities, and instincts of primitive man. The born criminal, therefore, is unsuited for life in civilized society and, unless specifically prevented, wil l inevitably violate its social and legal rules. Lombroso maintained that this born criminal can be iden tified by the possession of certain visible "stigmata"—for example, an asymmetry of the face or head, large monkey-like ears, large lips, re ceding chin, twisted nose, excessive cheek bones, long arms, excessive skin wrinkles, and extra fingers or toes. The male with five or more of these physical anomalies is marked as a born criminal. Female crimi nals are also born criminals, but they may be identified with as few as three anomalies.

In addition to the born criminal, Lombroso recognized two other types, the "insane criminal" and the "criminaloid." The insane criminal, with whom Lombroso included the idiot, imbecile, epileptic, and psy chotic, is mentally unfit for society. These criminals are no more capable than born criminals of controlling their criminal tendency, but they do not possess the criminal stigmata of the evolutionary throwback. Crimi- naloids are motivated by passion or have an emotional makeup that compels them, under the right circumstances, to commit crime. Of these types, the born criminal is the true criminal type, the most seri ously incorrigible and dangerous to society.

Lombroso originally viewed the great majority of criminals as born criminals, but later reduced the proportion to one-third as he added more social, economic, and political conditions as factors in crime. Nevertheless, the concept of the born criminal remained the centerpiece of Lombrosian theory. This basic concept of innate criminality became the dominant perspective on crime and triggered an onslaught of bio logical theorizing about crime. Any theory that refers to inherited traits, physical abnormalities, the biological inferiority of certain races and categories of people, body type, feeblemindedness, biochemical imbal ances, and biological defects and malfunctions that cause individuals to commit crime, can be traced back to Lombroso's theory (see Void and Bernard, 1986).

The Criminal as Biologically Inferior Charles Goring, an English prison medical officer, published in 1913

The English Convict, a report of findings from a laborious study that took years to complete. Goring employed the most sophisticated physi cal measurements and statistical techniques of the day. Comparing prison inmates with university undergraduates, soldiers, professors, and hospital patients, his study found no statistically significant differ ences between behavior and 37 physical traits that included head sizes,

Biological and Psychological Theories 37

modem society. The born criminal is an "atavism," Lombroso theo rized, a throwback to an earlier stage of human evolution. He has the physical makeup, mental capabilities, and instincts of primitive man. The born criminal, therefore, is unsuited for life in civilized society and, unless specifically prevented, will inevitably violate its social and legal rules. Lombroso maintained that this born criminal can be iden tified by the possession of certain visible "stigmata"-for example, an asymmetry of the face or head, large monkey-like ears, large lips, re ceding chin, twisted nose, excessive cheek bones, long arms, excessive skin wrinkles, and extra fingers or toes. The male with five or more of these physical anomalies is marked as a born criminal. Female crimi nals are also born criminals, but they may be identified with as few as three anomalies.

In addition to the born criminal, Lombroso recognized two other types, the "insane criminal" and the "criminaloid." The insane criminal, with whom Lombroso included the idiot, imbecile, epileptic, and psy chotic, is mentally unfit for society. These criminals are no more capable than born criminals of controlling their criminal tendency, but they do not possess the criminal stigmata of the evolutionary throwback. Crimi naloids are motivated by passion or have an emotional makeup that compels them, under the right circumstances, to commit crime. Of these types, the born criminal is the true criminal type, the most seri ously incorrigible and dangerous to society.

The Criminal as Biologically Inferior Charles Goring, an English prison medical officer, published in 1913

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

38 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

color of eyes, and facial features. As a result, he concluded that Lom broso was wrong: there was no such thing as a physical criminal type. His findings provided no support at all for Lombroso's theory that criminals are clearly differentiated from law-abiding citizens by physi cal appearance and measurable stigmata.

Goring s study came to be viewed by many scholars as the definitive refutation of Lombrosian theory. In truth, although Goring rejected Lombroso's particular theory of the criminal as an evolutionary ata vism, he accepted the Lombrosian notion that criminals are born with criminal traits. His own theory dismissed the effects of social factors on crime and proposed that criminals are inherently inferior to law- abiding citizens.

Of all of the measurements he took, Goring found statistically sig nificant differences (even while controlling for social class and age) between prisoners and civilians on two characteristics—body stature and weight. The prisoners in his study were shorter and thinner than the civilians. They were also judged (by the researcher's impression rather than by IQ tests) to be of lower intelligence. Goring took these findings as evidence that criminals suffer innately from both a "defec tive physique" and "defective intelligence." He later added inherent "moral defectiveness" to include recidivists who did not appear to be physically or mentally defective. In one way or another, he concluded, all offenders have a general inherited inferiority to law-abiding citizens (Driver, 1972; Wilson and Hermstein, 1985; Void and Bernard, 1986).

Subsequently, American anthropologist E . A. Hooten in Crime and the Man (1939) attacked Goring's methods and conclusions. Hooten conducted an elaborate study of 17,000 subjects in several states. The study included meticulous measurements of the physical charac teristics of inmates in prisons, reformatories, county jails, and other correctional facilities. These were compared with measurements of the same characteristics in college students, hospital patients, mental pa tients, firemen, and policemen. This comparison of prisoners with ci vilians was made within one elaborate typology of racial and nationality groups and within another typology of criminal offenses.

Although he included "sociological gleanings" concerning prisoners, Hooten concluded that sociological factors were not important, be cause criminals are basically "organically inferior."

[T]he real basis of the whole body of sociological, metric, and mor phological deviations of criminals from civilians is the organic inferior ity of the former. . . . [W]hatever the crime may be, it ordinarily arises from a deteriorated organism. . . . You may say that this is tantamount to a declaration that the primary cause of crime is biological inferiority— and that is exactly what I mean. . . . Certainly the penitentiaries of our

38 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

Goring's study came to be viewed by many scholars as the definitive refutation of Lombrosian theory. In truth, although Goring rejected Lombroso's particular theory of the criminal as an evolutionary ata vism, he accepted the Lombrosian notion that criminals are born with criminal traits. His own theory dismissed the effects of social factors on crime and proposed that criminals are inherently inferior to law abiding citizens.

Of all of the measurements he took, Goring found statistically sig nificant differences (even while controlling for social class and age) between prisoners and civilians on two characteristics-body stature and weight. The prisoners in his study were shorter and thinner than the civilians. They were also judged (by the researcher's impression rather than by 10 tests) to be of lower intelligence. Goring took these findings as evidence that criminals suffer innately from both a "defec tive physique" and "defective intelligence." He later added inherent "moral defectiveness" to include recidivists who did not appear to be physically or mentally defective. In one way or another, he concluded, all offenders have a general inherited inferiority to law-abiding citizens (Driver, 1972; Wilson and Hermstein, 1985; VoId and Bernard, 1986).

Subsequently, American anthropologist E. A. Hooten in Crime and the Man (1939) attacked Goring's methods and conclusions. Hooten conducted an elaborate study of 17,000 subjects in several states. The study included meticulous measurements of the physical charac teristics of inmates in prisons, reformatories, county jails, and other correctional facilities. These were compared with measurements of the same characteristics in college students, hospital patients, mental pa tients, firemen, and policemen. This comparison of prisoners with ci vilians was made within one elaborate typology of racial and nationality groups and within another typology of criminal offenses.

Although he included "sociological gleanings" concerning prisoners, Hooten concluded that sociological factors were not important, be cause criminals are basically "organically inferior."

[T]he real basis of the whole body of sociological, metric, and mor phological deviations of criminals from civilians is the organic inferior ity of the former .... [W]hatever the crime may be, it ordinarily arises from a deteriorated organism .... You may say that this is tantamount to a declaration that the primary cause of crime is biological inferiority and that is exactly what I mean .... Certainly the penitentiaries of our

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

39 Biological and Psychological Theories

society are built upon the shifting sands and quaking bogs of inferior human organisms. (Hooten, 1939)

Just as Hooten found Goring's techniques deficient, Hooten's work was itself criticized on several grounds. The differences he discovered between prisoners and non-prisoners were actually quite small. Fur thermore, he did not take into account the fact that his civilian sample included a large proportion of firemen and policemen who had been selected for their jobs based on their size and physical qualities. In addition, there was more variation among the prisoners than there was between the prisoners and civilians. The prisoners may have been in volved in many types of crime in the past, but only their most recent crime was recorded to identify the physical characteristics of types of offenders. Hooten began with the assumption of the biological inferi ority of criminals and only interpreted the differences between prison ers and civilians (e.g., foreheads, nasal bridges, jaws, eye colors, eyebrows, tattoos, and ears) as the confirmation of that inferiority. No differences in measurements were interpreted as an indication of the superiority of the inmates, and similarities between the two groups were ignored altogether. Hooten's conclusion that criminals were bio logically inferior to law-abiding citizens was clearly a case of the cir cular reasoning of tautology (Void, 1958:62-63); that is, it was foreordained by the assumption with which he began. There was no possible way to falsify his theory, which was true because he assumed it to be true.

The Lombrosian notion of criminal inferiority promoted by Goring and Hooten is also found in theories of feeblemindedness, inherited criminal traits, endocrine imbalances, and body types, along with many similar explanations that flourished in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (see Void and Bernard, 1985; Shoemaker, 1990). Social and non-biological factors were occasionally recognized by these early biological theorists, but environmental factors were seen as inci dental when compared to the certain destiny of the physical criminal type. In all these theories the central proposition was that criminals, at least the most serious and dangerous ones, were born by nature rather than made or nurtured. Criminals did not simply behave differ ently from ordinary people, it was proposed, they were inherently dif ferent with an inferior or defective biology that predetermined their criminal behavior (Rafter, 1992).

Recognizing the Inadequacies of Early Biological Theories This singleminded biological determinism was later criticized by

sociologists for ignoring or giving insufficient attention to social, eco nomic, and environmental factors. The critics were very successful in pointing out the methodological flaws in the biological research, the

Biological and Psychological Theories

society are built upon the shifting sands and quaking bogs of inferior human organisms. (Hooten, 1939)

Just as Hooten found Goring's techniques deficient, Hooten's work was itself criticized on several grounds. The differences he discovered between prisoners and non-prisoners were actually quite small. Fur thermore, he did not take into account the fact that his civilian sample included a large proportion of firemen and policemen who had been selected for their jobs based on their size and physical qualities. In addition, there was more variation among the prisoners than there was between the prisoners and civilians. The prisoners may have been in volved in many types of crime in the past, but only their most recent crime was recorded to identify the physical characteristics of types of offenders. Hooten began with the assumption of the biological inferi ority of criminals and only interpreted the differences between prison ers and civilians (e.g., foreheads, nasal bridges, jaws, eye colors, eyebrows, tattoos, and ears) as the confirmation of that inferiority. No differences in measurements were interpreted as an indication of the superiority of the inmates, and similarities between the two groups were ignored altogether. Hooten's conclusion that criminals were bio logically inferior to law-abiding citizens was clearly a case of the cir cular reasoning of tautology (VoId, 1958:62-63); that is, it was foreordained by the assumption with which he began. There was no possible way to falsify his theory, which was true because he assumed it to be true.

The Lombrosian notion of criminal inferiority promoted by Goring and Hooten is also found in theories of feeblemindedness, inherited criminal traits, endocrine imbalances, and body types, along with many similar explanations that flourished in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (see VoId and Bernard, 1985; Shoemaker, 1990). Social and non-biological factors were occasionally recognized by these early biological theorists, but environmental factors were seen as inci dental when compared to the certain destiny of the physical criminal type. In all these theories the central proposition was that criminals, at least the most serious and dangerous ones, were born by nature rather than made or nurtured. Criminals did not simply behave differ ently from ordinary people, it was proposed, they were inherently dif ferent with an inferior or defective biology that predetermined their criminal behavior (Rafter, 1992).

Recognizing the Inadequacies of Early Biological Theories This singleminded biological determinism was later criticized by

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

40 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

tautological reasoning, and the fact that the empirical evidence did not really support the theories. By the 1950s, biological theories in crimi nology had been thoroughly discredited. Criminology and delinquency textbooks continued to discuss Lombroso and other biological theorists for their historical interest, but the authors were highly critical of bio logical theory. Journal articles proposing or testing the biological ex planations of crime became virtually nonexistent. Biological theory had by that time been regarded by criminologists as unfounded and incon sequential.

To some extent, the dismissal of biological theories was based on the disciplinary predilections of sociologists, the strongest critics of bio logical theory. Sociological approaches to crime were always treated more favorably in America and Great Britain and, by mid-century, sociologists dominated criminological theory and research. This socio logical preeminence in American criminology persists today, although it is not as pervasive as it once was (Akers, 1992a).

C. Ray Jeffery (1979; 1980) and other modern proponents of biologi cal theories of crime claim that even in recent times these theories are not only totally ignored, but are treated as a taboo subject and system atically suppressed by closed-minded, sociologically oriented crimi nologists (see Holzman, 1979; Gordon, 1980; Taylor, 1984). This claim, however, seems to be highly questionable (Karmen, 1980). Publications on biological theories in criminology have actually flourished in the past two decades and continue to find a prominent place in scholarly journals (see the extensive literature in Fishbein, 1990).

Though sociologists and other sociologically-minded criminologists usually dismiss biological variables from their theories and remain the staunchest critics of biological theories, they are also vehement critics of each others sociological theories. Much of the objection to biological theory is based on its controversial implications for policy. If biological factors are innate or genetic, the theory proposes, one can only change them through medical or surgical procedures to modify brain or bio chemical functions. If the biological factors cannot be changed, then the only alternative for society is the long-term isolation and incarcera tion of criminals or selective breeding to prevent the biologically de fective from reproducing (Rafter, 1992).

The major reason for the rejection of these earlier biological theories has in reality very little to do with disciplinary or policy issues. It is simply because the theories were found to be untestable, illogical, or wrong. They seldom withstood empirical tests and often espoused sim plistic, racist and sexist notions that easily crumbled under closer scru tiny. The earlier biological theories were rejected primarily because of the:

40 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

C. Ray Jeffery (1979; 1980) and other modern proponents ofbiologi cal theories of crime claim that even in recent times these theories are not only totally ignored, but are treated as a taboo subject and system atically suppressed by closed-minded, sociologically oriented crimi nologists (see Holzman, 1979; Gordon, 1980; Taylor, 1984). This claim, however, seems to be highly questionable (Karmen, 1980). Publications on biological theories in criminology have actually flourished in the past two decades and continue to find a prominent place in scholarly journals (see the extensive literature in Fishbein, 1990).

Though sociologists and other sociologically-minded criminologists usually dismiss biological variables from their theories and remain the staunchest critics of biological theories, they are also vehement critics of each other's sociological theories. Much of the objection to biological theory is based on its controversial implications for policy. If biological factors are innate or genetic, the theory proposes, one can only change them through medical or surgical procedures to modify brain or bio chemical functions. If the biological factors cannot be changed, then the only alternative for society is the long-term isolation and incarcera tion of criminals or selective breeding to prevent the biologically de fective from reproducing (Rafter, 1992).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

41 Biological and Psychological Theories

[Sjorry history of this perspective in the last hundred years [with its] extravagant claims, meager empirical evidence, naivete, gross inade quacy, and stated or implied concepts of racial and ethnic inferiority.... (Dinitz, 1977:31)

Even the strongest supporters of modern biological theories of crime and delinquency recognize that the discrediting of Lombrosian posi tivism was "due to the serious methodological flaws of these early studies and the weakness of their efforts to integrate their findings with sociological theory and data" (Mednick and Shoham, 1979:ix).

In genetic research on criminal behavior much of the early research was based on methodologically questionable twin studies or, even worse, ideologically tainted studies from Nazi Germany. (Mednick, 1987)

"[B]iological criminology" was eventually discredited because its findings were largely unscientific, simplistic, and unicausal. Biological factors were globally rejected due to the inability of theorists to posit a rational explanation for the development of criminal behavior. (Fish- bein, 1990)

In light of this recognized "sorry history" of the biological explana tions for crime, is it any wonder that the modern resurgence of biologi cal theories of crime and delinquency over the past two decades has been met with strong skepticism? Some of these modern proponents have not offered any new theories, but have simply resurrected many of the older biological explanations of crime, relied on the same old, flawed studies, and presented little evidence that could be any more convincing. 1

XYY: The Super-Male Criminal One theory that has been advanced since the 1960s to explain the

behavior of violent male criminals is the proposal of a chromosomal abnormality, in which such males have an XYY, instead of the normal XY, male chromosomal pattern. The extra Y chromosome, so goes the hypothesis, turns these criminals into "super-males." This extra dose of maleness supposedly creates such a strong compulsion that the X Y Y carrier is at extreme risk of committing violent crime. The finding in some studies that the proportion of X Y Y males in prison populations (from 1 to 3%) is higher than in the general male population (less than 1%) is accepted as irrefutable evidence that this chromosomal abnor mality is a significant cause of criminal behavior (Taylor, 1984).

If the X Y Y syndrome plays any role in criminal causation, it would seem to be a very minute one. It can offer no explanation for female crime and would at best apply to a tiny portion of incarcerated offend ers, let alone an even tinier portion of male offenders in general. Its scope is extremely limited, to say the least. More importantly, there is little empirical evidence to support the X Y Y theory. Males with the X Y Y

Biological and Psychological Theories

[S]orry history of this perspective in the last hundred years [with its] extravagant claims, meager empirical evidence, naivete, gross inade quacy, and stated or implied concepts of racial and ethnic inferiority .... (Dinitz, 1977:31)

XYY: The Super-Male Criminal One theory that has been advanced since the 1960s to explain the

behavior of violent male criminals is the proposal of a chromosomal abnormality, in which such males have an XYY, instead of the normal XY, male chromosomal pattern. The extra Y chromosome, so goes the hypothesis, turns these criminals into "super-males." This extra dose of maleness supposedly creates such a strong compulsion that the XYY carrier is at extreme risk of committing violent crime. The finding in some studies that the proportion of XYY males in prison populations (from 1 to 3%) is higher than in the general male population (less than 1 %) is accepted as irrefutable evidence that this chromosomal abnor mality is a significant cause of criminal behavior (Taylor, 1984).

If the XYY syndrome plays any role in criminal causation, it would seem to be a very minute one. It can offer no explanation for female crime and would at best apply to a tiny portion of incarcerated offend ers, let alone an even tinier portion of male offenders in general. Its scope is extremely limited, to say the least. More importantly, there is little empirical evidence to support the XYY theory. Males with the XYY

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

42 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

chromosomal abnormality found in prison populations are less likely than other prisoners to be incarcerated for violent offenses. In fact, the percentage of institutionalized males who have the Klinefelter syn drome (an extra female chromosome of X X Y ) equals or exceeds the percentage with the extra male chromosome. Only a small proportion of X Y Y males commit crimes of any kind, and there is simply no evi dence that the X Y Y syndrome is a specific cause of any criminal be havior. Even major contemporary proponents of biological explanations of crime dismiss the X Y Y theory as scientifically invalid (National Institute of Mental Health, 1970; Fox, 1971; Witkin, 1977; Mednick et al., 1982; 1987).

Modern Biological Theories of Crime and Delinquency Current biological theorists, for the most part, reject the kind of

simplistic biological determinism characteristic of the theories of Lom broso, Goring, Hooten, and the X Y Y syndrome. More recent biological explanations have been founded on newer discoveries and technical advances in genetics, brain functioning, neurology, and biochemistry. Because of this, biological explanations of crime have come to occupy a new place of respectability in criminology. Though they must still contend with methodological problems and questionable empirical va lidity, they are taken more seriously today than at any time in the latter part of this century. The emphasis in biological theory has shifted from speculation over physical stigmata and constitutional makeup of the born criminal to careful studies of the genes, brain, central and auto nomic nervous systems, nutrition, hormonal (male and female) bal ances, metabolism, physiological arousal levels, and biological processes in learning.2

Most of the modern theorists claim that they have no desire to dredge up old, meaningless debate over nature versus nurture or to resurrect the Lombrosian theory of the born criminal (Gove and Carpenter, 1982). Rather, they have taken a new course with the assumption that behavior, whether conforming or deviant, results from the interaction of the biological make-up of the human organism with the physical and social environment. Therefore, no specific criminal behavior is inherited or physiologically preordained, nor is there is any single gene that pro duces criminal acts. Behavioral potentials and susceptibilities, they propose, can be triggered by biological factors. These potentialities have different probabilities of actual occurrence, depending upon the environments the individual confronts over a period of time. Few bio logical factors in crime are viewed today as fixed and immutable.

42 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

chromosomal abnormality found in prison populations are less likely than other prisoners to be incarcerated for violent offenses. In fact, the percentage of institutionalized males who have the Klinefelter syn drome (an extra female chromosome of XXY) equals or exceeds the percentage with the extra male chromosome. Only a small proportion of XYY males commit crimes of any kind, and there is simply no evi dence that the XYY syndrome is a specific cause of any criminal be havior. Even major contemporary proponents of biological explanations of crime dismiss the XYY theory as scientifically invalid (National Institute of Mental Health, 1970; Fox, 1971; Witkin, 1977; Mednick et al., 1982; 1987).

Modern Biological Theories of Crime and Delinquency

Current biological theorists, for the most part, reject the kind of simplistic biological determinism characteristic of the theories of Lom broso, Goring, Hooten, and the XYY syndrome. More recent biological explanations have been founded on newer discoveries and technical advances in genetics, brain functioning, neurology, and biochemistry. Because of this, biological explanations of crime have come to occupy a new place of respectability in criminology. Though they must still contend with methodological problems and questionable empirical va lidity, they are taken more seriously today than at any time in the latter part of this century. The emphasis in biological theory has shifted from speculation over physical stigmata and constitutional makeup of the born criminal to careful studies of the genes, brain, central and auto nomic nervous systems, nutrition, hormonal (male and female) bal ances, metabolism, physiological arousal levels, and biological processes in leaming.2

Most of the modem theorists claim that they have no desire to dredge up old, meaningless debate over nature versus nurture or to resurrect the Lombrosian theory of the born criminal (Gove and Carpenter, 1982). Rather, they have taken a new course with the assumption that behavior, whether conforming or deviant, results from the interaction of the biological make-up of the human organism with the physical and social environment. Therefore, no specific criminal behavior is inherited or physiologically preordained, nor is there is any single gene that pro duces criminal acts. Behavioral potentials and susceptibilities, they propose, can be triggered by biological factors. These potentialities have different probabilities of actual occurrence, depending upon the environments the individual confronts over a period of time. Few bio logical factors in crime are viewed today as fixed and immutable.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

43 Biological and Psychological Theories

Rather, they interact with and may be affected by the physical and social environment.3

As a rule, what is inherited is not a behavior; rather it is the way in which an individual responds to the environment. It provides an orien tation, predisposition, or tendency to behave in a certain fashion. . . . Findings of biological involvement in antisocial behavior have, in a few studies, disclosed measurable abnormalities, but in a number of studies, measurements do not reach pathologic levels. In other words . . . the biological values do not necessarily exceed normal limits and would not alarm a practicing physician." (Fishbein, 1990:42 and 54)

Although he gives primacy to biological causes (especially brain function ing) and is skeptical over the importance of social factors, C. Ray Jeffery (1977; 1979) proposes that criminal behavior results from the interaction of biology, behavior, and the environment.

IQ, Mental Functioning, and Delinquency The theory that delinquents are inherently feebleminded or suffer

disproportionately from "learning disabilities" has little empirical sup port (Murray, 1976). Childhood intelligence does not predict adolescent delinquency very well. Parental discipline, family cohesion, religious upbringing, and a child's exposure to delinquent peers are more effec tive predictors (Glueck and Glueck, 1959; McCord and McCord, 1959).

Nevertheless, research has consistently found a weak to moderate negative correlation between IQ (intelligence quotient) and delinquent behavior, which does not diminish when class, race, and other factors are controlled (Gordon, 1987). The higher the IQ score, the lower the probability that the adolescent will commit delinquent acts. Gordon (1987), noting the frequency with which this IQ-delinquency relation ship has been found in research literature, addresses the consistently lower average IQ score among black youth compared to white youth. He attributes the differences in black and white delinquency rates to differences in black and white IQ scores. Hirschi and Hindelang (1977) show that the relationship between delinquency and IQ scores, while not very strong, is at least as strong as that between delinquency and social class.

The extent to which IQ scores reflect only native, organically deter mined intelligence is disputed. Hirschi and Hindelang (1977) argue that the relationship between IQ and delinquency is an indirect one, in which low intelligence negatively affects school performance and ad justment, which in turn increases the probability of delinquency. Gor don (1987) believes that IQ tests accurately tap an underlying "g" factor of innate intelligence, which measures of school achievement simply reflect.

Biological and Psychological Theories 43

Rather, they interact with and may be affected by the physical and social environment. 3

As a rule, what is inherited is not a behavior; rather it is the way in which an individual responds to the environment. It provides an orien tation, predisposition, or tendency to behave in a certain fashion .... Findings of biological involvement in antisocial behavior have, in a few studies, disclosed measurable abnormalities, but in a number of studies, measurements do not reach pathologic levels. In other words ... the biological values do not necessarily exceed normal limits and would not alarm a practicing physician." (Fishbein, 1990:42 and 54)

IQ, Mental Functioning, and Delinquency The theory that delinquents are inherently feebleminded or suffer

The extent to which IQ scores reflect only native, organically deter mined intelligence is disputed. Hirschi and Hindelang (1977) argue that the relationship between IQ and delinquency is an indirect one, in which low intelligence negatively affects school performance and ad justment, which in tum increases the probability of delinquency. Gor don (1987) believes that IQ tests accurately tap an underlying "g" factor of innate intelligence, which measures of school achievement simply reflect.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

44 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

Racial differences in intelligence is a highly controversial and unset tled issue, and the evidence of significant differences in average delin quent behavior between black and white youth is inconsistent (see Chapter 8). The notion of an IQ effect on delinquency is often rejected because it has racist and undemocratic policy implications. However, it is difficult to dismiss entirely the evidence of correlation (albeit one of low magnitude) between IQ scores and delinquency, which does not disappear when many other factors are controlled (Gordon, 1987). The question is, what theory does this correlation support? Too often, it has been concluded that the correlations demonstrate the impact of bio logical factors—a conclusion which holds true only if one begins with the assumption that intelligence is biologically innate and has a direct effect on delinquency. If one starts with the assumption that IQ is at least partly the result of socialization and educational training, or that it has an indirect impact on delinquency through school achievement or the learning of delinquency, then the connection supports non-bio logical theories.

Terrie Moffitt and associates (Moffitt et al., 1994) have proposed a neuropsychological model of male delinquency (arguing that it does not apply to female delinquency) that goes beyond IQ to incorporate other aspects of mental functioning, such as verbal ability, visual-motor integration, and mental flexibility. Such factors are proposed as pre dictors only of early onset "life-course-persistent" antisocial behavior- delinquencies that begin by age 13 and continue into later life stages. They are not proposed as factors in "adolescence-limited" delin quency—onset or acceleration of delinquency after age 13 that does not persist into adulthood (Moffitt, 1993). The researchers report some support for the model for self-reported and official delinquency. But the delinquency at ages 15 and 18 are consistently related only to verbal ability and memory at age 13. None of the neuropsychological measures at age 13 were strong predictors of later delinquency.

Testosterone and Criminal Aggressiveness Several researchers have pointed to a connection between testoster

one (male hormone) levels and anti-social and aggressive behavior (Booth and Osgood, 1993). Since testosterone is a male hormone, one would expect the theory and research to be concentrated on the role that high levels of testosterone play in propensities toward male ag gression and violence. However, the relationship between testosterone and a variety of other adolescent and adult behavior, such as sexual behavior, substance use, smoking, and nonviolent crime, has also been studied.

Research has found statistically significant relationships, but, except for the unsurprising finding that testosterone level is associated with

44 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

Racial differences in intelligence is a highly controversial and unset tled issue, and the evidence of significant differences in average delin quent behavior between black and white youth is inconsistent (see Chapter 8). The notion of an IQ effect on delinquency is often rejected because it has racist and undemocratic policy implications. However, it is difficult to dismiss entirely the evidence of correlation (albeit one of low magnitude) between IQ scores and delinquency, which does not disappear when many other factors are controlled (Gordon, 1987). The question is, what theory does this correlation support? Too often, it has been concluded that the correlations demonstrate the impact of bio logical factors-a conclusion which holds true only if one begins with the assumption that intelligence is biologically innate and has a direct effect on delinquency. If one starts with the assumption that IQ is at least partly the result of socialization and educational training, or that it has an indirect impact on delinquency through school achievement or the learning of delinquency, then the connection supports non-bio logical theories.

Terrie Moffitt and associates (Moffitt et al., 1994) have proposed a neuropsychological model of male delinquency (arguing that it does not apply to female delinquency) that goes beyond IQ to incorporate other aspects of mental functioning, such as verbal ability, visual-motor integration, and mental flexibility. Such factors are proposed as pre dictors only of early onset "life-course-persistent" antisocial behavior delinquencies that begin by age 13 and continue into later life stages. They are not proposed as factors in "adolescence-limited" delin quency-onset or acceleration of delinquency after age 13 that does not persist into adulthood (Moffitt, 1993). The researchers report some support for the model for self-reported and official delinquency. But the delinquency at ages 15 and 18 are consistently related only to verbal ability and memory at age 13. None of the neuropsychological measures at age 13 were strong predictors of later delinquency.

Testosterone and Criminal Aggressiveness Several researchers have pointed to a connection between testoster

Research has found statistically significant relationships, but, except for the unsurprising finding that testosterone level is associated with

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

45 Biological and Psychological Theories

increased sexual activity (Udry, 1988), the relationships appear to be weak. No one has yet proposed a general theory of crime based on testosterone. Nevertheless, the fact that the effects of testosterone level has been tested on so many different types of deviance would indicate that researchers are hypothesizing that higher levels of testosterone create a general propensity to violate social and legal norms.

Booth and Osgood (1993) have presented a theory of adult male deviance that relies on the indirect effects of testosterone levels, medi ated by the degree of social integration and prior adolescent delin quency. They were able to test this theory in part with a sample of Vietnam War veterans, measuring testosterone levels in blood speci mens. Self-reported adult deviance (e.g., fighting, police arrests, and passing bad checks) and previous adolescent delinquency were also obtained from the veterans. Controlling for age and race, the re searchers found a relationship between testosterone and adult devi ance, but one which was reduced by introducing measures of social integration and, even more so, by measures of prior delinquency.

Booth and Osgood conclude that "we have firm evidence that there is a relationship between testosterone level and adult deviance. This relationship is strong enough to be of substantive interest, but it is not so strong that testosterone would qualify as the major determinant of adult deviance" (Booth and Osgood, 1993). This seems to be a modest conclusion, but it overstates the relationship found in their research. In fact, the initial relationship between testosterone levels is extremely weak (explaining close to zero percent of the variance in adult devi ance), and the relationship disappears when social integration and prior delinquency are taken into account.

Mednick's Theory of Inherited Criminal Tendencies Of all the various biological explanations of crime, the best known

and most systematically stated and tested is the biosocial theory of Sarnoff Mednick and his associates (Mednick and Christiansen, 1977; MednickandShoham, 1979; Mednick etal., 1981; Mednick etal., 1987; Mednick et al., 1984; Brennan et al., 1995). Mednicks theory proposes that some genetic factor(s) is passed along from parent to offspring. Criminal or delinquent behavior is not directly inherited, the theory explains, nor does the genetic factor directly cause the behavior; rather, one inherits a greater susceptibility to succumb to criminogenic envi ronments or to adapt to normal environments in a deviant way.

Mednick has hypothesized that the susceptible individual inherits an autonomic nervous system (ANS) that is slower to be aroused or to react to stimuli. Those who inherit slow arousal potential learn to con trol aggressive or anti-social behavior slowly or not at all. Thus, they stand at greater risk of becoming law violators (Mednick, 1977).

Biological and Psychological Theories 45

increased sexual activity (Uchy, 1988), the relationships appear to be weak. No one has yet proposed a general theory of crime based on testosterone. Nevertheless, the fact that the effects of testosterone level has been tested on so many different types of deviance would indicate that researchers are hypothesizing that higher levels of testosterone create a general propensity to violate social and legal norms.

Mednick's Theory of Inherited Criminal Tendencies Of all the various biological explanations of crime, the best known

and most systematically stated and tested is the biosocial theory of Sarnoff Mednick and his associates (Mednick and Christiansen, 1977; Mednick and Shoham, 1979; Mednick et al., 1981; Mednick et al., 1987; Mednick et al., 1984; Brennan et al., 1995). Mednick's theory proposes that some genetic factor(s) is passed along from parent to offspring. Criminal or delinquent behavior is not directly inherited, the theory explains, nor does the genetic factor directly cause the behavior; rather, one inherits a greater susceptibility to succumb to criminogenic envi ronments or to adapt to normal environments in a deviant way.

Mednick has hypothesized that the susceptible individual inherits an autonomic nervous system (ANS) that is slower to be aroused or to react to stimuli. Those who inherit slow arousal potentialleam to con trol aggressive or anti-social behavior slowly or not at all. Thus, they stand at greater risk of becoming law violators (Mednick, 1977).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

46 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

[ANS responsiveness] may play a role in the social learning of law- abiding behavior.... Briefly stated, this theory suggests that faster ANS recovery (or half recovery) should be associated with greater reinforce ment and increased learning of the inhibition of antisocial tendencies. Slow ANS recovery, on the other hand should be associated with poor learning of the inhibition of antisocial responses. (Brennan et al., 1995:84-85)

Hans J. Eysenck has also proposed a similar biosocial "arousal" theory, in which the inherent differences in individuals' levels of arousal affect their conditioning by the social environment. Those with low arousability are less likely to learn prosocial behavior and more likely to learn criminal and deviant behavior patterns (Eysenck and Gudjons- son, 1989).

Mednick and colleagues' first study, conducted in Copenhagen, Den mark, linked the criminality of biological fathers with the subsequent criminal behavior of their sons who had been adopted out and raised by adoptive parents. They found the highest rates of officially recorded criminal offenses among those sons whose biological and adoptive fa thers both had criminal records, and the lowest rates when neither had criminal records. Those sons whose biological fathers had criminal records, but whose adoptive fathers did not, were more likely to be registered as criminals than those whose adoptive fathers, but not their biological fathers, had criminal records (Hutchings and Mednick, 1977c).

Later, the same type of study was conducted on a larger sample of adopted sons from all parts of Denmark. Mednick interpreted the find ings from this larger study as a replication and independent confirma tion of the findings from the Copenhagen study. The larger study included the criminal background of both parents, biological and adop tive, and related that to the adoptees' criminal convictions. Again, Med nick reports verification of the theory. He found that those with only criminal biological parents were more likely than those with only crimi nal adoptive parents to have been convicted of offenses. The highest rate of convictions were found among persons whose biological and adoptive parents both had been convicted of crimes (Mednick et al., 1984).

These Danish studies are the most famous and most frequently cited in support of the heritability of criminal propensities. However, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990:47-63) have pointed to some serious flaws in this research, which has since raised doubts as to how much it actually validates the theory of inherited criminal potential. Here are six points to consider:

(1) The differences between the criminality effects of biological and adoptive fathers found in the Copenhagen study, while in the expected

46 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

[ANS responsiveness] may playa role in the social learning of Iaw abiding behavior .... Briefly stated, this theory suggests that faster ANS recovery (or half recovery) should be associated with greater reinforce ment and increased learning of the inhibition of antisocial tendencies. Slow ANS recovery, on the other hand should be associated with poor learning of the inhibition of antisocial responses. (Brennan et aI., 1995:84-85)

(1) The differences between the criminality effects of biological and adoptive fathers found in the Copenhagen study, while in the expected

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

47 Biological and Psychological Theories

direction, were not statistically significant. Therefore, while not dis continuing the theory, such findings cannot be taken as evidence in favor of the theory.

(2) The larger Denmark study shifted from fathers' criminality ex clusively to the criminal record of the parents (either the mother, father, or both). Since different measures of the independent variable were used, the second study really did not replicate the first study as Mednick claims.

(3) When considered separately in the second study, the effect of biological mothers' criminality was stronger than the effects of fathers' criminality. The finding that criminality may be more maternally than paternally inherited seems uncharacteristic in light of the fact that men are far more criminally inclined than women. If crime is inherited, why would it be inherited from the gender with a significantly lower rate of criminal behavior?

(4) Mednick incorporated all of the same subjects from Copenhagen into the larger sample from Denmark. This is inappropriate in a repli cation study, since it contaminates the independence of replicated find ings.

(5) The effects of the criminality of biological parents found in the Denmark study, while statistically significant because of the larger sam ple size, were actually less than the effects found in the Copenhagen study. The percentage difference in the criminality of adoptive sons with or without criminality in biological parents was very small, even though it was somewhat more than the differences between those with or without criminality in adoptive parents.

(6) When Gottfredson and Hirschi subsequently removed the Copen hagen sample (to eliminate the sample contamination) and analyzed data only from the larger Denmark sample, they found no significant relationship between the criminality of sons and biological parents.

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) also show that Swedish and Ameri can adoption research purporting to duplicate Mednick's findings has in fact found very small, insignificant differences in the criminality of offspring that could be attributed to inherited traits. They estimate that the correlation between biological fathers' and sons' criminality is about r=.03 and conclude that "the magnitude of the 'genetic effect' as determined by adoption studies is near zero" (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990:60).

Another approach to testing biosocial theory is to study the behavior of twins. A central concept in twin research is known as "concordance." Concordance is a quantitative measure of the degree to which the ob served behavior or attribute of one twin (or sibling) matches that of the other. Most studies of identical and fraternal twins, both those raised in the same family and those separated by adoption, have found higher

Biological and Psychological Theories 47

direction, were not statistically significant. Therefore, while not dis confirming the theory, such findings cannot be taken as evidence in favor of the theory.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

48 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

concordance between the criminal and non-criminal behavior of iden tical twins than between fraternal twins. But these studies have not been successful in showing how much of this concordance is based solely on biological as opposed to social similarities (Hutchings and Mednick, 1977a; 1977b).

Based on findings from a mailed questionnaire study of twins, Rowe (1984; 1986) concluded that individual differences in self-reported de linquency were more the result of genetic factors than common or specific environmental factors. However, by adjusting for mutual sib ling influence, he later reduced the estimates of the effect of heritability on delinquency from about two-thirds of the differences in delinquent behavior to about one-third (Rowe and Gulley, 1992). Also, in a later analysis of the same data into which he included specific measures of family variables, Rowe concluded that delinquency is best explained by the combined effects of heredity and family environment. Similarly, Carey (1992) found in a study of Danish identical and fraternal twins that when the imitation and other peer effects of sibling interaction are taken into account, the amount of variance attributed to genetic simi larity is considerably reduced.

The traditional models suggest a strong heritability: the genotype contributes to between 57 percent and 71 percent of the variance in [delinquency] liability. The model that permits peer influence suggests more modest estimates of heritability, in one case actually approaching 0.0. (Carey, 1992:21)

In the twin studies, the biological and social variables are seldom measured directly.4 In the studies of adoptees, similarly biological vari ables are indirectly measured by the degree of behavioral similarities between biological parent(s) and offspring when the biological par ents) does not raise the child. Social variables are assumed to be op erative when similarities are found in the behavior of adoptive parents and adoptees. Concordance in the behavior of twins reared apart is attributed to biological factors on the assumption that their social en vironments differ. Children reared together are assumed to have had similar social environments.

Empirical Validity of Biological Theories of Criminal Behavior As shown above, modern biological explanations of crime have far

surpassed the early biological theories of Lombroso, Goring, Hooten, and others. This is partly the result of greater theoretical sophistication, less reliance on immutable biological defects or destiny, and greater attention to interaction with social and psychological variables. It is

48 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

In the twin studies, the biological and social variables are seldom measured directly.4 In the studies of adoptees, similarly biological vari ables are indirectly measured by the degree of behavioral similarities between biological parent(s) and offspring when the biological par ent(s) does not raise the child. Social variables are assumed to be op erative when similarities are found in the behavior of adoptive parents and adoptees. Concordance in the behavior of twins reared apart is attributed to biological factors on the assumption that their social en vironments differ. Children reared together are assumed to have had similar social environments.

Empirical Validity of Biological Theories of Criminal Behavior As shown above, modem biological explanations of crime have far

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

49 Biological and Psychological Theories

also partly the result of more sophisticated methodology in biological studies and an expanded knowledge of neurological, hormonal, and other bodily systems.

Nevertheless, such research has not yet established the empirical validity of biological theories. Tests of the theories continue to have problems with methodology, sampling, and measurement (Fishbein, 1990). Walters and White (1989) came to a similar conclusion based on their own extensive review of research on the heritability of criminal behavior. They considered studies using four basic approaches: family studies, twin studies, adoption studies, and gene-environment interac tion studies. Their review found that biological research on crime suf fers from several methodological deficiencies, including the measurement of criminality, sample size, sampling bias, statistical pro cedures, and generalizability. Walters and White believed that genetic factors are correlated with some measures of criminal behavior, but they warned that:

[T]he large number of methodological flaws and limitations in the research should make one cautious in drawing any causal inferences at this point in time. Our review leads us to the inevitable conclusion that current genetic research on crime has been poorly designed, ambigu ously reported, and exceedingly inadequate in addressing the relevant issues. (Walters and White, 1989:478)

Walters (1992) followed this up with a statistical "meta-analysis," i.e., the re-calculation of different measures of effect reported from different studies into a standard measure of effect that can be compared across studies. He found that the correlations reported from different studies were often statistically significant and usually in the expected direction. But the average overall effect of heredity on crime found in these studies was weak. The more recently and rigorously studies are conducted, the more likely they are to find the weaker effects of genetic factors on crime than did the older and more poorly designed studies. The strongest methodology, used in adoption studies, produces findings less favorable to the hypothesis of a genetic effect in crime than the weaker methodology in family and twin studies.

Thus far, newer biological explanations have garnered mixed and generally weak empirical support. Biological theories that posit crime- specific genetic or physiological defects have not been, and are not likely to be, accepted as sound explanations in criminology. The greater the extent to which a biological theory proposes to relate normal physi ological and sensory processes to social and environmental variables in explaining criminal behavior, the more likely it will be empirically supported and accepted in criminology.

Biological and Psychological Theories 49

also partly the result of more sophisticated methodology in biological studies and an expanded knowledge of neurological, hormonal, and other bodily systems.

Walters (1992) followed this up with a statistical "meta-analysis," i.e., the re-calculation of different measures of effect reported from different studies into a standard measure of effect that can be compared across studies. He found that the correlations reported from different studies were often statistically significant and usually in the expected direction. But the average overall effect of heredity on crime found in these studies was weak. The more recently and rigorously studies are" conducted, the more likely they are to find the weaker effects of genetic factors on crime than did the older and more poorly designed studies. The strongest methodology, used in adoption studies, produces findings less favorable to the hypothesis of a genetic effect in crime than the weaker methodology in family and twin studies.

Thus far, newer biological explanations have garnered mixed and generally weak empirical support. Biological theories that posit crime specific genetic or physiological defects have not been, and are not likely to be, accepted as sound explanations in criminology. The greater the extent to which a biological theory proposes to relate normal physi ological and sensory processes to social and environmental variables in explaining criminal behavior, the more likely it will be empirically supported and accepted in criminology.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

50 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

Rowe and Osgood (1984) argue that the operation of genetic factors between an individual's delinquent behavior and the delinquency of his or her friends can be integrated into current sociological theories of delinquency. Their stance is not that delinquency is the direct or inevi table outcome of genetic differences. Rather, they propose that "causal sequences leading to delinquency are traceable to individual differences in genes, so any social causation entails either individual differences in reactions to social processes or differential social reactions to already differing individuals" (Rowe and Osgood, 1984:526).

There is little to disagree with in the assertion that biology interacts with the environment. The real question involves the nature of that interaction and the extent to which crime is influenced by biology or environment. If a theory proposes that biological defects or abnormali ties are the direct cause of all or most criminal behavior, it is not likely to be supported by empirical evidence. It is also less likely to be sup ported if it contends that individual biological factors better explain the full range of crime and delinquency in general than do social or social-psychological factors.

Psychoanalytic Theory

Psychoanalytic theory shares with biological theory the search for causes of crime within the makeup of the individual. Rather than seek for the causes in biological processes or anomalies, it attempts to look deep into the mind of the individual. According to Kate Friedlander (1947), classical Freudian psychoanalytic explanations of delinquency focus on abnormalities or disturbances in the individuals emotional development from early childhood. The id is the unconscious seat of irrational, antisocial, and instinctual impulses which must be control led and shaped for social adaptation to life in society. This is done through the development of the ego, or the conscious and rational part of the mind, and through the superego, or the conscience and moral izing part of the mind. Normally, a child's emotional maturation goes through developmental stages, each of which is rooted in sexuality: an oral phase as an infant, an anal phase up to about age three, a phallic phase up to about age five, a latency phase up to the time of puberty, then finally a mature genital phase of development as an adult.

The id is uncontrolled, until the development of the ego gains control over the instincts at about age three. At the beginning of the phallic stage, the child wants to possess the parent of the opposite sex and perceives the same-sex parent as a rival for the affection of the other parent. These feelings are repressed, and an Oedipus complex (the unconscious love of the mother and hatred/fear of the father by the boy) or an Electra complex (the love of the father and hatred/fear of

50 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

Psychoanalytic Theory

Psychoanalytic theory shares with biological theory the search for causes of crime within the makeup of the individual. Rather than seek for the causes in biological processes or anomalies, it attempts to look deep into the mind of the individual. According to Kate Friedlander (1947), classical Freudian psychoanalytic explanations of delinquency focus on abnormalities or disturbances in the individual's emotional development from early childhood. The id is the unconscious seat of irrational, antisocial, and instinctual impulses which must be control led and shaped for social adaptation to life in society. This is done through the development of the ego, or the conscious and rational part of the mind, and through the superego, or the conscience and moral izing part of the mind. Normally, a child's emotional maturation goes through developmental stages, each of which is rooted in sexuality: an oral phase as an infant, an anal phase up to about age three, a phallic phase up to about age five, a latency phase up to the time of puberty, then finally a mature genital phase of development as an adult.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

51 Biological and Psychological Theories

the mother by the girl) develops. The superego evolves by identifying with the same-sex parent and internalizing parental control; hence, the child gives up the desire to possess the opposite-sex parent. Any abnor mal development during these stages, or any fixation at an infantile or childhood stage, leads to antisocial behavior by adolescence as the individual struggles with the unconscious guilt and pathology of this arrested development.

The basic premise of the psychoanalytic approach to crime is that delinquent or criminal behavior is in itself unimportant. It is only a symptom of the psychic conflict between the id, ego, and superego, arising from abnormal maturation or control of instincts, a poor early relationship with the mother or father, fixation at a stage of emotional development, and/or repressed sexuality or guilt. The most critical fixa tion is at the Oedipus/Electra stage. The adolescent is not consciously aware of these conflicts, because they all trace back to early childhood, the conscious memories of which are blocked by "infantile amnesia." Repressed guilt and conflict continue to be the "true" causes of delin quency, although other more visible factors may seem to be operating.

Other Freudian or neo-Freudian explanations of crime and delin quency emphasize the underdevelopment or disrupted development of the superego, due to the absence of parents or the presence of cruel, unloving parents. Some theorists stress that not only are the criminal acts themselves expressions of unresolved guilt, but criminals uncon sciously seek to be caught and punished to expatiate this repressed guilt. Whatever the specific mechanism, psychoanalytic explanations rely heavily on irrational and unconscious motivations as the basic forces behind crime. In psychoanalytical theory, all criminal behavior is explained as expressions or symptoms of one or more underlying mental illnesses, emotional disorders, or psychic disturbances. Not only law violations but also various other types of deviant behavior, such as drug and alcohol abuse, are seen as dysfunctional attempts to deal with repressed guilt, feelings of hopelessness or helplessness, pent up ag gression, or other unresolved unconscious and emotional turmoil. Both adolescent delinquency and adult crime are believed to stem essentially from these irrational impulses or compulsions. Early childhood events are often seen as crucial, while current or anticipated environmental and social events are seen as irrelevant or important only as triggering events for the dysfunctional behavior.5

The treatment and policy implications of psychanalytic theory are direct and obvious. Criminal and delinquent offenders should be treated not as evil but as sick persons who are not basically responsible for their actions in any rational or controllable sense. Therefore, punish ment of offenders wil l be ineffective and will only provoke more guilt and unhealthy psychological reactions.

Biological and Psychological Theories 51

the mother by the girl) develops. The superego evolves by identifying with the same-sex parent and internalizing parental control; hence, the child gives up the desire to possess the opposite-sex parent. Anyabnor mal development during these stages, or any fixation at an infantile or childhood stage, leads to antisocial behavior by adolescence as the individual struggles with the unconscious guilt and pathology of this arrested development.

The treatment and policy implications of psychanalytic theory are direct and obvious. Criminal and delinquent offenders should be treated not as evil but as sick persons who are not basically responsible for their actions in any rational or controllable sense. Therefore, punish ment of offenders will be ineffective and will only provoke more guilt and unhealthy psychological reactions.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

52 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

Delinquents and criminals, the theory contends, need treatment for underlying emotional disturbances. Cure that problem, and the prob lem of crime will be remedied. Any attempt to deal only with the symp tom, the behavior, or the pent-up emotions of the offender wil l only result in the substitution of another deviant symptom to express itself. The criminal must undergo psychoanalytic treatment to help him or her uncover the hidden, repressed causes of the behavior, which can then be dealt with effectively by the ego and superego. Since the real causes of the behavior lie hidden in the unconscious, the objective is to reveal to the person's conscious mind the deep-seated unconscious motivations that are driving his or her deviant behavior. Once these are brought out into the open, they can be handled more rationally and resolved in a healthy way. Intensive, individual, in-depth therapeutic sessions are the ideal course to take, although other less intensive treat ment is possible.

The empirical validity of psychoanalytic explanations of crime, upon which these treatment policies rest, is difficult to assess. The language used is often strongly deterministic, claiming unequivocal empirical support for a psychiatric explanation of individual cases as the outcome of mental disorder. Flora Schreiber (1984) conducted interviews with Joseph Kallinger, a shoemaker who, along with his teenage son, com mitted a series of burglaries and robberies and three murders. Schreiber reaches firm cause-and-effect conclusions about the connection be tween the elder Kallinger's criminal behavior and what she diagnoses as his psychosis caused by the psychological and physical abuse of him as a child by his adoptive parents. She concentrates especially on the time when Joseph was four years old and his parents told him that the hernia operation he had was really done to remove the demon from his penis. According to Schreiber, this and other statements made to the young boy about his penis produced "psychological castration" in Joseph. This was the primary cause of Kallinger's psychosis, which in his adult life "drives him to ki l l ."

Joseph Kallinger would never have become a killer without his psy chosis. With it he had no other course. . . . [M]urder was the inevitable outcome of Kallinger's psychosis.... [H]e had become psychotic before he committed a single crime. . . . [T]he crimes sprang directly from the psychosis: from the delusional system and the hallucinations the psy chosis had spawned. . . . One can, however, establish a cause and effect relationship between Joe Kallinger's murders and the psychological abuse of him as a child. (Kallinger, 1984:17, 390, 394)

Psychiatric studies rely heavily on clinical and case studies such as this, producing widely varying estimates of the proportions of offenders who have some diagnosable mental disorder or psychiatric problem.

52 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

Delinquents and criminals, the theory contends, need treatment for underlying emotional disturbances. Cure that problem, and the prob lem of crime will be remedied. Any attempt to deal only with the symp tom, the behavior, or the pent-up emotions of the offender will only result in the substitution of another deviant symptom to express itself. The criminal must undergo psychoanalytic treatment to help him or her uncover the hidden, repressed causes of the behavior, which can then be dealt with effectively by the ego and superego. Since the real causes of the behavior lie hidden in the unconscious, the objective is to reveal to the person's conscious mind the deep-seated unconscious motivations that are driving his or her deviant behavior. Once these are brought out into the open, they can be handled more rationally and resolved in a healthy way. Intensive, individual, in-depth therapeutic sessions are the ideal course to take, although other less intensive treat ment is possible.

Joseph Kallinger would never have become a killer without his psy chosis. With it he had no other course .... [M]urder was the inevitable outcome of Kallinger's psychosis .... [H]e had become psychotic before he committed a single crime .... [T]he crimes sprang directly from the psychosis: from the delusional system and the hallucinations the psy chosis had spawned .... One can, however, establish a cause and effect relationship between Joe Kallinger's murders and the psychological abuse of him as a child. (Kallinger, 1984:17,390,394)

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

53 Biological and Psychological Theories

Such studies concentrate on individual cases or on small samples of the most serious offenders. Unfortunately, there are very few compari sons with samples of the general population or other offenders (Pallone and Hennessey, 1992).

Moreover, there may be no way to test psychoanalytic theory directly, because the motivations are deeply hidden in the unconscious, un known even to the offender. Therefore, it is only the interpretation of the therapist that determines when the independent variables of un conscious urges and impulses are present. Psychoanalytic interpreta tions, therefore, tend to be after the fact, tautological, and untestable (Shoham and Seis, 1993). Typically, the "psychopathic deviation" as sumed to be the cause of criminal behavior is determined by clinical judgment, in which " 'habitual criminality' itself is a principal criterion for such a diagnosis." This procedure produces "a tautology of impres sive proportions" (Pallone and Hennessy, 1992:56 and 165). Various techniques of clinical measures, such as "projective" tests, are some times used to add to clinical judgment. But "both the paucity of studies and the instability of the interpretations preclude any valid generaliza tions based on projective test data" (Pallone and Hennessy, 1992:168).

Personality Theory

Personality theories share with the psychoanalytic approach the as sumption that offending behavior is important only as a symptom of an underlying problem within the individual. The implications for pol icy and practice based on individualized therapy are also similar. Treat ment, not punishment, is needed, preferably intensive individual counseling. These policy and practice implications have been widely adopted in the criminal and juvenile justice system. Virtually every residential and non-residential delinquency and crime prevention, cor rectional, and treatment program in the includes some form of indi vidual counseling guided by the psychological theories of emotional maladjustment.

In personality theory, the problem lies not in unconscious motiva tion, but in the content of the person s personality. The basic proposition here is that delinquents and criminals have abnormal, inadequate, or specifically criminal personalities or personality traits that differentiate them from law-abiding people.

One version of personality theory explains criminal and delinquent behavior as an expression of such deviant personality traits as impul siveness, aggressiveness, sensation-seeking, rebelliousness, hostility, and so on. Another version claims that criminal and delinquent offend ers differ from law-abiding persons in basic personality type. Conform ity reflects normal personality. Serious criminal violations spring from

Biological and Psychological Theories 53

Moreover, there may be no way to test psychoanalytic theory directly, because the motivations are deeply hidden in the unconscious, un known even to the offender. Therefore, it is only the interpretation of the therapist that determines when the independent variables of un conscious urges and impulses are present. Psychoanalytic interpreta tions, therefore, tend to be after the fact, tautological, and untestable (Shoham and Seis, 1993). Typically, the "psychopathic deviation" as sumed to be the cause of criminal behavior is determined by clinical judgment, in which" 'habitual criminality' itself is a principal criterion for such a diagnosis." This procedure produces "a tautology of impres sive proportions" (Pallone and Hennessy, 1992:56 and 165). Various techniques of clinical measures, such as "projective" tests, are some times used to add to clinical judgment. But "both the paucity of studies and the instability of the interpretations preclude any valid generaliza tions based on projective test data" (Pallone and Hennessy, 1992:168).

Personality Theory

In personality theory, the problem lies not in unconscious motiva tion, but in the content ofthe person's personality. The basic proposition here is that delinquents and criminals have abnormal, inadequate, or specifically criminal personalities or personality traits that differentiate them from law-abiding people.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

54 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

an aberrant personality, variously labelled a psychopathic, antisocial, or sociopathic personality. These are vague concepts, but the psycho path is usually defined as a self-centered person who has not been properly socialized into pro-social attitudes and values, who has devel oped no sense of right and wrong, who has no empathy with others, and who is incapable of feeling remorse or guilt for misconduct or harm to others.

Personality theories have been empirically tested with more rigorous methodology than psychoanalytic theories. The most common tech nique is to measure personality traits with a written personality inven tory and compare mean responses on the inventory from adjudicated delinquents with mean responses from non-delinquents. The most com monly used personality tests are the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the California Psychological Inventory (CPI). The CPI is intended to measure variations in personality traits, such as dominance, tolerance, and sociability. The M M P I uses several scales to measure "abnormal" personality traits, such as depression, hysteria, paranoia, psychopathology, introversion/extroversion, and compul- siveness (Hathaway and Meehl, 1951).

The M M P I was originally designed by Starke Hathaway (1939) for the purpose of detecting deviant personality patterns in mentally i l l adults. Using it to predict delinquency is based on the assumption that delinquency is symptomatic of mental illness similar to adult patterns of maladaptive behavior (Hathaway and Monachesi, 1953). Research has found that institutionalized delinquents score higher on the scales of asocial, amoral, and psychopathic behavior, while non-delinquents tend to be more introverted. However, attempts at predicting future delinquency from M M P I measures have only been partially successful. The strongest predictive scale from the MMPI, the "F Scale," does not measure any personality trait at all. Rather, it records any inconsistent or careless responses to the questions on the M M P I or any poor reading ability in completing the questionnaire (Hathaway and Monachesi, 1963).

Other research findings on the causative effects of personality traits on criminal and delinquent behavior are inconsistent. A review of such studies at mid-century concluded that only a minority of them found significant differences in personality between delinquents and non-de linquents (Schuessler and Cressey 1950). However, a subsequent review reported that a majority of the more carefully conducted studies found significant differences (Waldo and Dinitz, 1967), and studies continue to find correlations of personality traits with self-report and other meas ures of delinquency and crime (Caspi et al., 1994). Other current analy ses, on the other hand, have reported mixed findings in the research

54 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

Personality theories have been empirically tested with more rigorous methodology than psychoanalytic theories. The most common tech nique is to measure personality traits with a written personality inven tory and compare mean responses on the inventory from adjudicated delinquents with mean responses from non-delinquents. The most com monly used personality tests are the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the California Psychological Inventory (CPI). The CPI is intended to measure variations in personality traits, such as dominance, tolerance, and sociability. The MMPI uses several scales to measure "abnormal" personality traits, such as depression, hysteria, paranoia, psychopathology, introversion/extroversion, and compul siveness (Hathaway and Meehl, 1951).

The MMPI was originally designed by Starke Hathaway (1939) for the purpose of detecting deviant personality patterns in mentally ill adults. Using it to predict delinquency is based on the assumption that delinquency is symptomatic of mental illness similar to adult patterns of maladaptive behavior (Hathaway and Monachesi, 1953). Research has found that institutionalized delinquents score higher on the scales of asocial, amoral, and psychopathic behavior, while non-delinquents tend to be more introverted. However, attempts at predicting future delinquency from MMPI measures have only been partially successful. The strongest predictive scale from the MMPI, the "F Scale," does not measure any personality trait at all. Rather, it records any inconsistent or careless responses to the questions on the MMPI or any poor reading ability in completing the questionnaire (Hathaway and Monachesi, 1963).

Other research findings on the causative effects of personality traits on criminal and delinquent behavior are inconsistent. A review of such studies at mid-century concluded that only a minority of them found significant differences in personality between delinquents and non-de linquents (Schuessler and Cressey, 1950). However, a subsequent review reported that a majority of the more carefully conducted studies found significant differences (Waldo and Dinitz, 1967), and studies continue to find correlations of personality traits with self-report and other meas ures of delinquency and crime (Caspi et al., 1994). Other current analy ses, on the other hand, have reported mixed findings in the research

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

55 Biological and Psychological Theories

on personality and criminal behavior (see Sutherland, Cressey, and Luckenbill, 1992).

Personality theories and research testing also have problems with tautology. The concept of the psychopathic personality, for instance, is so broad that it could apply to virtually anyone who violates the law. For this reason, there have been widely different estimates of the pro portion of offenders who are psychopaths, from 10 percent to 80 per cent, depending on who applies the definition. Moreover, some of the diagnostic measures used to classify persons as psychopathic are sim ply indicators of a prior history of deviant or criminal behavior, such as frequent arrests, abuse of others, and fighting.

Similar problems of tautological relationships are found in the stud ies using personality inventories. In the MMPI , the main scale that differentiates delinquents from non-delinquents also measures psycho pathic tendencies. But this same scale includes items about "trouble with the law," the very thing it is supposed to explain. Furthermore, the items on this scale and the socialization scale of the CPI were originally developed by creating various questions to which delinquents would respond differently than non-delinquents. When the same items are later submitted to groups of delinquents and non-delinquents, different responses will automatically be expected. The research using person ality inventories and other methods of measuring personality charac teristics have not been able to produce findings to support personality variables as major causes of criminal and delinquent behavior (Void and Bernard, 1986; Shoemaker, 1990; Pallone and Hennessy, 1992; Sutherland, Cressey, and Luckenbill, 1992).

Summary Early biological positivism proposed that criminal behavior is di

rectly determined by the person s biological makeup. This basic concept of innate criminality, of the criminal as a distinctly different type of person from law-abiding citizens, was proposed in theories of the born criminal, which listed physical abnormalities, biological inferiority, body type, biochemical imbalances, and biological defects as the pri mary causes of crime. This kind of biological theory has largely been discredited. Current biological theorizing tends to move beyond the simplistic determinism of early theories. The older biological theories have given way to theories relating crime and delinquency to measur able variations in inherited characteristics, brain functioning, central and autonomic nervous systems, nutrition, hormonal balances, meta bolism, physiological arousal levels, biological processes in learning, and similar variables.

Biological and Psychological Theories 55

on personality and criminal behavior (see Sutherland, Cressey, and Luckenbill, 1992).

Similar problems of tautological relationships are found in the stud ies using personality inventories. In the MMPI, the main scale that differentiates delinquents from non-delinquents also measures psycho pathic tendencies. But this same scale includes items about "trouble with the law," the very thing it is supposed to explain. Furthermore, the items on this scale and the socialization scale of the CPI were originally developed by creating various questions to which delinquents would respond differently than non-delinquents. When the same items are later submitted to groups of delinquents and non-delinquents, different responses will automatically be expected. The research using person ality inventories and other methods of measuring personality charac teristics have not been able to produce findings to support personality variables as major causes of criminal and delinquent behavior (VoId and Bernard, 1986; Shoemaker, 1990; Pallone and Hennessy, 1992; Sutherland, Cressey, and Luckenbill, 1992).

Summary

Early biological positivism proposed that criminal behavior is di rectly determined by the person's biological makeup. This basic concept of innate criminality, of the criminal as a distinctly different type of person from law-abiding citizens, was proposed in theories of the born criminal, which listed physical abnormalities, biological inferiority, body type, biochemical imbalances, and biological defects as the pri mary causes of crime. This kind of biological theory has largely been discredited. Current biological theorizing tends to move beyond the simplistic determinism of early theories. The older biological theories have given way to theories relating crime and delinquency to measur able variations in inherited characteristics, brain functioning, central and autonomic nervous systems, nutrition, hormonal balances, meta bolism, physiological arousal levels, biological processes in learning, and similar variables.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

56 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

Modern biological theories propose the interaction of these factors with the social environment. However, they do not support the view that specific biological defects produce specific criminal behavior or that a single gene produces criminal acts. Biological factors are not regarded as fixed and immutable or as having any greater power over behavior than social or psychological variables. Rather, their effects are viewed as indirect and mediated by other factors.

The newer biological explanations of crime have found greater ac ceptance in criminology, but they have been criticized for their depend ence on research with serious methodological problems that produce questionable empirical validity. Research has provided some evidence in favor of the newer biological theories of criminal behavior, but prob lems with methodology, sampling, and measurement have resulted in mixed and generally weak empirical support.

Psychoanalytic and personality theories also concentrate on the causes of crime arising from within the individual, but the causes are not seen as inherited or biologically predetermined. The causes are dysfunctional, abnormal emotional adjustment or deviant personality traits formed in early socialization and childhood development. The policy implications of these theories are widely adopted in correctional treatment programs. Empirical tests of these theories have been ham pered by tautological propositions and measures of key concepts. Per sonality theories are more testable than psychoanalytic theories, but empirical research has produced mixed results.

56 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation

Modem biological theories propose the interaction of these factors with the social environment. However, they do not support the view that specific biological defects produce specific criminal behavior or that a single gene produces criminal acts. Biological factors are not regarded as fixed and immutable or as having any greater power over behavior than social or psychological variables. Rather, their effects are viewed as indirect and mediated by other factors.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

57 Biological and Psychological Theories

Notes

1. See, for instance, the biological theorizing in Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) or Taylor (1984).

2. See the papers in Mednick et al. (1987) and the review of various bio logical studies in Shah and Roth (1974), Void and Bernard (1986), Wal ters and White (1989), and Fishbein (1990).

3. See Mednick and Christiansen (1977), Mednick and Shoham (1979), Jeffery (1977; 1979), Mednick et al. (1981), Mednick et al. (1987), Eysenck and Gudjonsson (1989), Fishbein (1990), and Brennan et al. (1995).

4. Some studies do directly measure these variables. See Mednick et al. (1981) and Rowe (1986). Also, social variables are seldom directly meas ured. See Rowe (1986).

5. See Lindner (1944), Aichhorn (1963), Halleck (1967), and the reviews of psychoanalytic theory in Hakeem (1957-58), Vold and Bernard (1986), Shoemaker (1990), Holman and Quinn (1992), Pallone and Hennessy (1992), and Shoham and Seis (1993).

Biological and Psychological Theories

Notes

1. See, for instance, the biological theorizing in Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) or Taylor (1984).

2. See the papers in Mednick et al. (1987) and the review of various bio logical studies in Shah and Roth (1974), VoId and Bernard (1986), Wal ters and White (1989), and Fishbein (1990).

4. Some studies do directly measure these variables. See Mednick et al. (1981) and Rowe (1986). Also, social variables are seldom directly meas ured. See Rowe (1986).

5. See Lindner (1944), Aichhorn (1963), Halleck (1967), and the reviews of psychoanalytic theory in Hakeem (1957-58), Void and Bernard (1986), Shoemaker (1990), Holman and Quinn (1992), Pallone and Hennessy (1992), and Shoham and Seis (1993).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

This page intentionally left blank

C op

yr ig

ht ©

1 99

9. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed