1

Biological Theory of Crime

Name

Institution

Course

Professor

Date
 2

Biological Theory of Crime

Criminological theory is one of many fields that strive to understand issues of crime and

criminal justice. Theories span such areas as trends in criminal activity, the creation and violation

of laws, and criminal and deviant behavior. The biological explanation of crime purports that

criminal behavior is linked to biological defects such as hormonal imbalance, brain

abnormalities, and even genetics. The theory postulates that because of one's biological

composition, they are prone to criminality, which affects personality, mental capability, and

social interaction. This essay examines the Biological Theory of Crime by exploring its

underlying assumptions and supportive data. It is aimed at analyzing the role of genetic,

neurological, and physiological factors in criminal behavior by determining the applicability and

implications of the theory through research.

Historical Development of Biological Theory of Crime

The biological theory of crime was formulated by Cesare Lombroso, an Italian

criminologist who posited that individuals engaged in criminal activities were inherently "born"

as such rather than being shaped by their experiences. Lombroso argued that criminal behavior

was a result of atavism, which he defined as a regression to primitive instincts, suggesting that

criminals exhibited distinct physical characteristics compared to non-criminals (Rose, 2021).

Although this early interpretation of the biological hypothesis has largely been discredited, the

fundamental idea that biological factors play a role in criminal behavior continues to be a subject

of research and discussion. Critics of the biological explanation assert that it overlooks the

complex social and environmental factors that also contribute to criminal behavior, labeling it as

overly simplistic and deterministic. Additionally, the theory has faced criticism for its potential

misuse in justifying discriminatory practices, such as racial profiling and eugenics. Despite these
 3

criticisms, the biological theory of crime remains an important area of inquiry within

criminology. Advances in neurology and genetics have facilitated new insights into the biological

foundations of criminal behavior, and researchers are actively exploring the complex interplay

between biological and environmental influences on criminal tendencies.

Through the years, criticism arose that weakened Lombroso's arguments due to its

reliance on bogus data and concepts, and he laid the groundwork for a more subtle approach to

the relationship between biology and crime. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries,

constitutional theories were developed in criminology, including William Sheldon's somatotype

model, which linked physical types (including mesomorphs and ectomorphs) to character

traits/propensity to criminal behavior (Rose, 2021). Still, these concepts were also criticized for

overeping very complex processes in people's behaviors.

The transition to modern biological ideas was made possible by developments in

physiology, neuroscience, and genetics. The biological basis of behavior was supported by twin

and adoption studies conducted in the middle of the 20th century, which demonstrated that

characteristics like impulsivity and violence are inherited (Rose, 2021). Similar to this, advances

in neuroscience have identified anatomical and functional changes in the brain, including

anomalies in the amygdala and prefrontal cortex, which are linked to increased aggression, poor

decision-making, and impulsivity. Violent behavior has also been linked to neurochemical

abnormalities, such as low serotonin levels.

Contemporary perspectives challenge the notion of strict determinism, acknowledging the

complex interactions between biological factors and environmental influences. For instance,

epigenetics illustrates how external conditions can either trigger or inhibit genetic tendencies.

Factors such as negative childhood experiences, inadequate nutrition, or exposure to harmful

 4

substances can modify gene expression and influence brain development, thereby heightening

the risk of engaging in criminal behavior (Rose, 2021). Consequently, modern biological theories

advocate for a biopsychosocial framework, which combines biological, psychological, and social

elements to provide a thorough understanding of criminality and its underlying causes.

Genetic Factors in Criminal Behavior

Genetic studies in criminal behavior have been perennial, and the evidence mainly comes

from twin and adoption studies. Twin studies, especially monozygotic twins, report concordances

of antisocial behavior significantly higher compared to dizygotic twins, thereby indicating

genetic effects. For instance, twin studies in Denmark by Christiansen reported that identical

twins shared criminal propensities more than fraternal twins (Larregue, 2024). Adoption studies

also support this view, in which children separated from biological parents who have criminal

records still have higher criminal rates than the general population. The findings again point to

the genetic component but also point out the interaction between the two, as criminality is not

consistent across individuals who share genetic material.

Specific genes have also been implicated in aggression and impulsivity, with still the

MAOA gene gaining more attention. MAOA, a gene known as "the warrior gene" because it

breaks down and balances the neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin that control mood and

behavior, came to prominence. Research has proven that individuals with polymorphic versions

of the MAOA-L gene who have a traumatic childhood or have been abused may become

explosive and impulsive. According to Larregue's (2024) study, MAOA-L carriers exposed to

negative early childhood experiences were 2.5 times more likely to exhibit antisocial behavior as

adults than those who were not exposed. Although this has been hypothesized, the scope of genes
 5

and environment is determined by how we are raised and interact with the kind of society we live

in, showing that genes are not acting by themselves to determine behavior.

Critics of this theory apply similar reasoning as in the case of this general genetic

determinism, and they pointed out that criminality is multifaceted and cannot be explained

simply through genes. Shortcomings of cross-sectional research are small sample volume; or its

inability to effectively control the external influences. Altogether, demanding for genes to be

pushed preserves the bigotry of discrimination regarding genetic backgrounds and, in return,

generates more ethical questions and discrimination against the people of society (Lei, 2024).

The critics also argue that this can always be countered by appealing to environmental conditions

such as; such as, socioeconomic status, education, and peer pressure influence behavior and not

genetics. Therefore, the movement from the biopsychosocial model is much more effective in

shifting the concentration from the genes without any regard to the environment the candidate is

going to live in, and such personal peculiarities can be found with psychological examination.

This integrative approach goes much beyond reduction outlooks into the depth of protective

methods as well as treatment measures appropriate to the situation.

Neurological and Brain Structure Contributions

Studies have repeatedly established that certain dysfunction in the brain, specifically the

prefrontal cortex, are a risk factor in the propensity to commit crime. The prefrontal cortex area

is important for purposefully inhibiting urges and actions and making ethical decisions. Its

impairment may obstruct an individual's self-regulation and ability to consider the consequences

of their behavior, leading to impulsivity/aggressiveness and sociopathic tendencies (Bedoya &

Portnoy, 2023). For instance, neuroimaging approaches compare violent offenders with non-

violent groups and report decreased activity in the violent offenders' prefrontal cortex. Another
 6

prominent case stems from the infamous Phineas Gage, a railroad worker in the 19th century

who suffered severe prefrontal area damage in an explosion, causing him to become highly

aggressive and lacking self-control.

There is a connection between brain health and a predisposition to criminal activities that

stems from other neurological disorders, such as traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) and

neurodevelopmental disorders. Severe head injuries, which are sometimes inflicted during fights

or caused by accidents, are linked with violence and a lack of empathy. TBIs in the life of an

offender and their early exposure to brain injury as a contributing factor to criminality is

evidenced by the research conducted among criminals (Bedoya & Portnoy, 2023). Similarly,

neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD or autism are most likely involved in the

progression of criminality, especially in situations that involve exposure to stressors from the

environment. These conditions interfere with communication and the management of higher-

order cognitive processes, reducing their ability to control impulsive or reckless behavior.

Neurological factors also assist in explaining crime commission. For instance, violent

criminals and serial murderers like Charles Whitman, the 'Texas Tower Sniper,' were found to

suffer from some brain injury. It emerged during an autopsy that there was a tumor that was

pressing the amygdala, an area of the brain that is involved in emotion and aggression control

(Romero-Martínez et al., 2024). Such narratives help to appreciate the interaction between

neurological defects and their behavioral implications; that is to say, although impaired brain

structures may predispose individuals towards criminality, they are usual catalysts of crime. This

information guides rehabilitation programs, which show the need for primary prevention and

assistance to at-risk neurological patients.

Biochemical Influences on Behavior

 7

Neurotransmitters and hormonal imbalances are other important factors influencing

aggression and antisocial behavior. Serotonin is generally found in low quantities among people

with aggressive tendencies, which is a neurotransmitter responsible for maintaining mood and

impulse control. Lowered serotonin levels hinder the brain from inhibiting impulsive or violent

reactions (Gulledge et al., 2023). Similarly, dopamine, associated with reward and pleasure,

might also contribute to antisocial behavior when out of balance. For instance, excessive

dopamine activity has been associated with impulsivity and the need for immediate gratification

common in criminal behavior. High levels of testosterone, which create hormonal imbalances,

have also been linked to aggression. It is said that individuals with higher levels of testosterone

may behave more dominantly or aggressively, though the influence of contextual and social

variables modifies this association.

The dependency on biochemical mechanisms on environmental factors has been

demonstrated to be so strong that it explains the distinct link between biological systems and

external conditions. The use of certain drugs and alcohol at the prenatal stages of life can cause

deformities in brain structure formation and consequently lead to a lifetime of biochemical

problems related to impulsiveness and violence. Another example is drug dependency, which is

often characterized by the abuser's total disregard for consequences due to the fact that drugs like

cocaine or methamphetamine suppress the inhibitors, thus worsening the problem. Total systems

that account for these inconsistencies have been developed, and these explicitly show the

interplay between the biological and environmental components (Gulledge et al., 2023). As an

illustration, the said individuals are found to be more prone to the manifestation of antisocial

behaviors in situations where they have been maltreated, neglected, or abused. Yet, the latter

perspective shows that it is the interplay between the biological predispositions and the
 8

environmental obstacles that need to be addressed at the early stages to minimize the onset of

criminality.

Criticisms and Limitations of the Biological Theory

The biological explanation of criminal behavior raises several ethical and conceptual

concerns, particularly in relation to the idea of biological determinism. Critics oppose using

retributive measures or attributing crime solely to genetic or neurological differences, as this

could lead to discrimination against individuals based on specific physical characteristics

(Ameri, 2020). Such a stance also diminishes personal accountability by suggesting that people

commit crimes due to hereditary factors rather than their own choices. Ethical considerations

must be thoroughly addressed when deterministic approaches are used to justify punitive actions

and support eugenics-inspired policies while ignoring the social and environmental contexts

influencing behavior.

Sociology and psychology critics demonstrate that Biological perspectives fail to capture

aspects of human nature fully. Human actions are, to a very large extent, determined by the

socialization process, culture, and environmental factors such as peer pressure, family

background, and economic status (Ameri, 2020). For instance, although there may be programs

in one's genes for aggression or meanness, settings such as poverty, maltreatment, or illiteracy

boost the chances of a criminal career. However, it still needs to be methodologically challenging

to delineate the biological factors from human actions. While the behavior can be influenced by

biology, there is sometimes a tendency to focus exclusively on the issue and thereby overlook the

state of activities as the two interact and play role in integration. It underscores the tenacity of the

view that knowledge and control of criminality cannot be achieved in isolation of both biological

and social factors.

 9

Conclusion

Conclusively, it is essential to consider the biological factors that explain criminal

conduct, including genetic makeup, neurological disorders, and biochemical disorders. It is

necessary for an early start and designing a proper individual rehabilitation plan. But crime has

to be understood as a multifaceted process that depends on the differences in the human genotype

and the common effects of socialization, culture, and life experiences. Understanding these

interactions eliminates oversimplification and the resultant stigmatization. For effective crime

prevention strategies, developing them requires an interdisciplinary approach: synthesizing

findings originating from biology, psychology, and sociology allows us to obtain a rather holistic

vision of how to support and protect individuals with taught risk factors taking into account the

community's context. This broad approach also led to the development of balanced policies –

now, one can speak about justice and rehabilitation at the same time.
 10

References

Ameri, M. (2020). Criticism of the sociocultural theory. Budapest International Research and

Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal), 3(3), 1530–1540.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/07e8/9aeec3fdd1bd30a348be22818c0c808e2015.pdf/

1000

Bedoya, A., & Portnoy, J. (2023). Biosocial criminology: History, theory, research evidence, and

policy. Victims & Offenders, 18(8), 1599-1629.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15564886.2022.2133035

Gulledge, L., Oyebode, D., & Donaldson, J. R. (2023). The influence of the microbiome on

aggressive behavior: An insight into age-related aggression. FEMS microbiology letters,

p. 370, fnac114.

https://academic.oup.com/femsle/article/doi/10.1093/femsle/fnac114/7070714

Larregue, J. (2024). Hereditary: The Persistence of Biological Theories of Crime. Stanford

University Press. https://books.google.co.ke/books?

hl=en&lr=&id=l1jiEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT5&dq=related:XwtHxoRcGKIJ:scholar.

google.com/&ots=RDi2eo86Md&sig=llD-

F1rPdzmmtu2_YdazbrcFcbE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Lei, M. K. (2024). Review of “Hereditary: The Persistence of Biological Theories of Crime”.

https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/103/1/e10/7638281

Romero-Martínez, Á., Beser-Robles, M., Cerdá-Alberich, L., Aparici, F., Martí-Bonmatí, L.,

Sarrate-Costa, C., ... & Moya-Albiol, L. (2024). The contribution of brain volume to

explain autonomous imbalance during recovery from acute stress in batterers. Brain
 11

Structure and Function, 229(4), 797-808.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00429-024-02772-w

Rose, N. (2021). The biology of culpability: Pathological identity and crime control in a

biological culture. In Governing Risks (pp. 505–534). Routledge.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nikolas-Rose/publication/249720803_The_Biology

_of_Culpability_Pathological_Identity_and_Crime_Control_in_a_Biological_Culture/

links/552d251a0cf21acb0921395f/The-Biology-of-Culpability-Pathological-Identity-and-

Crime-Control-in-a-Biological-Culture.pdf