Open Access Research Article
EXPLORING THE EVOLUTION OF BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY: SOCIOHISTORICAL ORIGINS, CORE ASSUMPTIONS, AND ITS TRANSFORMATIVE INFLUENCE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE PRACTICES
Published Paper
Article Details
EXPLORING
THE EVOLUTION OF BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY: SOCIOHISTORICAL ORIGINS, CORE
ASSUMPTIONS, AND ITS TRANSFORMATIVE INFLUENCE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE PRACTICES
AUTHORED BY
- PRABHBIR SINGH MANN
Introduction
Biosocial, as a general
term in common parlance, is used in various social sciences. However, it has
yet to be defined in a definite or comprehensive manner. Through a broad
spectacle, ‘Biosocial’ has been described as a
comprehensive notion supporting the vigorous and collaborative interplay
between biological experiences and social correlation, comprising the actions
of human buildout throughout life[1]. Historically, criminology has denigrated biological
viewpoints despite its scientific diligence. However, of late, there is an
increase in criminologists who are coalescing the fields of biological and
environmental factors in their indagation[2]. Unlike other
theories that form their basis on biological factors and pass over to
environmental factors, biosocial theory in criminology is an advanced
discipline and acknowledges the significance of both biological and
environmental factors. This is supported by abundant empirical research, which
divulged that all human behaviour is arising out of environmental and
biological factors functioning separately and correlatively[3].
There are criminologists who acknowledge the significance of both biological
and environmental factors in understanding human behaviour. However, not many
of these criminologists actually apply this integrated approach in practical
applications or real-world contexts[4]. Biosocial
criminology is an incipient discipline of criminological research, seeking
to amalgamate knowledge and mechanisms from evolutionary sciences,
neuroscience, and genetics into the research about crime[5]. Biosocial
theory in criminology tries to explain cases involving crimes and emphasises on
ascertaining whether certain factors have contributed to the criminal act. It
posits that it is not only the social and environmental factors which affect
criminal conduct but the biological factors that affect it, too. It is
supported by studies which indicate that interactivity of biological and social
factors influences the development of criminal behaviours in an individual.
Furthermore, the biosocial theory has been defined as the confluence
of various disciplines with criminology in order to establish itself as the
potential extensive space for scientific criminology[6].
For example, a person born from a complicated labour when growing up had a
troublesome childhood at home might be more likely to have a criminal
propensity, along with factors like genes, neurotransmitters, health risks and
neuropsychology influencing his criminal behaviour. In this essay, we
will delve into the evolution of biosocial criminology, examining its
sociohistorical origins, core assumptions, and potential transformative
influence on criminal justice practices. By exploring the historical context
and core principles of biosocial criminology, we will better appreciate the
intricate web of factors influencing criminal behaviour and how this
understanding may shape the future of criminological research and policy.
Sociohistorical
Context
Biological theory in criminology was
accepted in the late 19th century and early 20th century
in the United States of America, but due to eugenicists exploiting the
research, it began to be detested in the field. In recent times, it has been able
to recover, and Cesare Lombroso is attributed with publicising the biological
theory in 1876[7]. His
theory became contentious in Europe, where Charles Goring criticised Lombroso and found that there is “no such thing as
an anthropological criminal type”[8], but
quite the different happened in the United States, where it became well-liked[9]. For decenniums, criminology has
been influenced by political and sociological perspectives. Discoveries from
such fields must not be repudiated, but standing solo, they do not provide a
concluded evaluation of the contributions to the field of criminology[10]. The data being produced from various fields of
behavioural genetics, psychology, and endocrinology stipulate that biological
factors form a remarkable part in the instigation of antisocial behaviour[11]. Even though biosocial
criminology does not have a long history, new progress in technologies has made
it easier to acquire data for the exploration of the biosocial questions[12].
Conjoined with research purposing that antisocial behaviour is accredited to
genetic factors has encouraged criminologists to investigate how both
environmental and biological factors influence behaviour[13]. But still, in modern times,
biosocial theories are met with doubt in criminal justice and criminology. The
biological theory came to its present importance in the last decade, where to
criminologists, it became understandable that the sole environmental viewpoint
on the origination of crime cannot be contemplated as rigorously valid. One of
the reasons is that these theories have been influenced by political
correctness, which reduced their practicable merit considerably. It became
clear that people’s proclivity to have a social life or having antisocial urges
which might lead to crime are predetermined by evolutionary selection, and the
circumambient environmental and socioeconomic factors have an effect on the
shaping of self-identity of people. Hence, it would not be wrong to put forward
that external factors play an important role in engender criminal tendencies.
Core
assumptions
Biosocial
criminology operates on a set of core assumptions that underpin its approach to
understanding criminal behaviour. These assumptions form the foundation of the
discipline and shape the methodologies and perspectives used in this
multidisciplinary field. The first one is Behaviour and Molecular Genetics. It
suggests that behaviour is affected by genes when it comes to the interplay
with environmental factors and indicates the idea that the consequences of the
environmental factors on a phenotype are based on the genetic structure of an
individual[14]. Second is the Evolutionary Psychology
Perspective, which presents a strong consolidative viewpoint on antisocial and
criminal conduct[15].
Third the Neuroscience Perspective, and fourth is the Reward Dominance Theory,
which describes why low serotonin is connected to delinquent acts and is
sported by test prognosis that pubescent psychopaths are hardly acquiescent to
rewards and unsatisfactory in passive avoidance. In research, forty male
pubescent juvenile offenders were grouped into non-psychopaths and psychopaths
by implementing cluster analysis. The results supported the viewpoint that
psychopaths mostly concentrated on the likelihood of reward under the
stipulation of different inducements and when adequately prompted, they have
the ability to improve their performance[16]. Fifth, is the Prefrontal Dysfunction Theory, which suggests
that the frontal lobes of criminals do not work in the same manner as they do
for most people, mainly in terms of holding back actions that harm others[17]. The theory elucidates that why offending has been connected
to the damage of the frontal lobe and abnormal brain waves[18]. Behavioural
genetic research under biosocial criminology attempts to recognise the
comparative contributions of genetic and environmental factors to the
observations in a behavioural denouement. However, a common approach is to
scrutinise the similarities between identical twins and collate it with
similarities noticed between fraternal twins[19]. Such
studies provide understanding as to how much difference and antisocial
behaviour is ascribed to environmental factors and how much is ascribed to
genes[20]. It
also talks about neurocriminology, which connects the biosocial field by
describing how biological and environmental factors can impact each other,
which factors can alter the functioning of the brain and how these factors do
so[21].
These core assumptions are interrelated and collectively contribute to the
comprehensive understanding of criminal behaviour within biosocial criminology.
They illuminate the intricate connections between genetic, environmental,
evolutionary, and neurological factors in shaping human behaviour.
Biosocial criminology encompasses
many elements which criminology is lacking. Firstly, it must shift from
punishment and deterrence to prevention[22]. Secondly, it should shift
social factors to the physical environment, and finally it should amalgamate
social and biological factors for a biosocial field of learning[23]. Criminal conduct is not fully
abnormal and maladjusted behaviour. Therefore, biosocial findings in
behavioural research are of specific interest to understand the abnormal
behaviours[24].
It includes both undetected and criminal behaviours, as they are
injurious to people affected by the environment they live in, as individuals
are not genetically criminal and neither do they, all of a sudden, become
homicidal psychopaths[25].
It is linked to antisocial behaviour, for example antisocial children having a
greater risk of adapting problems in the society[26]. In summary, it is emphasising
the idea that behaviour is influenced by various factors, not solely genetics,
and that it encompasses a range of behaviours, including those that are not
necessarily criminal. It highlights the connection between environment,
behaviour, and societal consequences while rejecting the notion of inherent
genetic criminality. It is also
noticed that people who exhibit criminal behaviour also demonstrate troubles in
other aspects of life, like unemployment, usage of drugs, heavy consumption of
alcohol and unstable living standards[27].
Biosocial
theory and explanation of crime
The biosocial theory in criminology
is an expanding field of multidisciplinary studies indicating definitive
statistical relationships connecting a broad scope of biological factors and
delinquent behaviour[28]. It includes various biomarkers
including genetics, brain functions and structures, hormones, heart rate,
neurotransmitters and factors related to complications during birth,
development throughout childhood and health risks, and also includes
neurological factors which have a direct connection to the decision-making by
the criminals[29]. Research exploring the functioning of the brain
and its structure has indicated a connection between particular areas of the
brain and criminal tendencies[30]. Various chemicals have been directly or
indirectly linked to antisocial and delinquent behaviour, for example, lead has
been associated to an increased degree of psychopathy[31], pubescent offending[32]
and violent crime, along with other psychophysiological
factors like that of resting heart rate and involuntary arousals, are seen as
factors of future delinquent and criminal behaviour[33]. The
biosocial theory helps in the explanation of criminal and delinquent acts by
various ways. First, there is undeniable proof that antisocial behaviour which
constitutionally incorporates criminal and delinquent behaviour is the direct
outcome of genetical and environmental factors. In detail, genetical impact
explains almost one half of the variance in delinquent and antisocial
behaviour, while the other half of the variance can be elucidated by
environmental factors. Moreover, the amalgamation of genes and environmental
factors, via G x Es and rGEs, incline to have more impact on delinquent
behaviour than the sole influence of each factor, for example, peer
interactivity which forms an important role to social learning theory[34],
is highly affected by genetic factors[35].
Biosocial criminology and its explanation of crime have been accepted in
various case laws by courts. In the case of James v. Ryan (2012)[36],
the Ninth Circuit suggested that early childhood trauma might have ruinous and
permanent effects. It was noted by the court that trauma and child
victimisation have an impact on the mental development of a child and that
feelings of terror, panic and abandonment during childhood can have effects on
adult behaviour. In People v. Beeler (1995)[37],
the defendant was sentenced to death for first-degree murder and armed burglary
but introduced family members and medical experts who testified that he was
subjected to extreme mental, verbal, physical and sexual abuse by his
stepmother. A psychologist also testified that extreme abuse was caused to the
convicted during his childhood and that he suffered from mental disorders
including schizophrenia. Similarly, in Poindexter v. Mitchell (2006)[38], the court
noted that if the defence attorney had conducted a better investigation, it
would have constructed that defendant’s problematic upbringing and developed
psychological issues because of trauma were a direct cause for his behaviour
which resulted in the triple murder. In the case of United States v. Hinckley
(1981)[39], even though John Hinckley Jr. had
attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan, lawyers produced a
tomographic X-ray scan of his brain, which suggested shrinkage in his brain and
enlarged ventricles, which revealed a mental defect. Even though the prosecution
argued that the scans looked normal, he was found not guilty. Finally, in the case of People v. Weinstein (1992)[40], the defendant returned home and
strangled his wife and then threw her out from the 12th-story
apartment. But he had been complaining of headaches, whereby when medically
checked, they found a large cyst on the prefrontal cortex, part of the brain
which is responsible for impulse control. Although, it could not be suggested
as to how much the cyst had contributed to the homicide, but the
neuroscientific evidence as defence was strong and the defendant’s plea was
upheld. A study showcased that, offenders who had relapsed into homicide had
parents with five times the risk for any crime without notable risk for violent
criminal acts[41]. The results indicated towards the first
evidence of transference of crime covering three generations and the violent
offenders having more possibility of crime among parents[42].
In another study, based on qualitative research exploration, whose aim
was to validate or refuse the cause-effect connection between the participant’s
polymorphic gene MAOA in their DNA and the increased probability to take part
in aggressive or delinquent behaviour, Hart and Marmorstein observed ninety
thousand participants, which were high school students, after obtaining the
data and its connection to the aim of the study, the researchers were able to
corroborate the plausibility of the hypothesis[43].
In the
modern context, biosocial theory continuous to evolve and adapt to the everchanging
landscape of criminology and criminal justice. It remains a vibrant field of
study, with ongoing research uncovering new dimensions of the interplay between
biology, genetics, and crime. As contemporary society faces complex challenges
related to crime and antisocial behaviour, biosocial theory provides a lens
through which we can better comprehend the underlying causes and explore
innovative solutions.
Limitations
Opprobrium of biosocial criminology
are prompted due to various reasons. While a few of them are due to scientific
calibre of biosocial research studies, others are due to the characteristic
that biosocial theory in criminology incites oversimplification[44]. It promotes different stages of
determinism and accepts atheoretical empiricism[45]. While for few researchers and
scholars, including those who have held up their research assertions and work
on propositions which refuses measurement, classification and simplification,
biosocial theory is seen as a grave menace to the philosophical paradigm of
such researchers[46]. Throughout the research, Carrier and
Walby blame biosocial criminology of imagining that it works with impeccable
data proposing that academics of biosocial perspective are unaware of the
restrictions of the data[47]. They also blame biosocial criminology of
tolerating etiology, disregarding norm-making and ‘a constructivist
epistemology, de-ontologizing crime’[48].
In the case of Mobley v. The State (1995)[49],
where the accused walked into a Domino’s Pizza to rob and when he got the
money, he shot the manager of the store, later in the Court, his first line of
action was to present evidence that tried to reason that his action were caused
due to his genes, and pointed out to a Dutch study, which showed that men had
unprovoked violence, his lawyer had found a similar pattern among his other
male relatives, including violent behaviour and criminal convictions. The court
denied the defence motion and noticed that even if Mobley had same genetic
variants it would still not indicate that he had no substantial capacity to
think about his wrongful acts. Hence genes don’t make us do anything, other
than in the cases of extreme mental health or defect, we are legally bound for
our behaviour. Similarly, it is argued that, from the data and research from the
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, biosocial theory of Moffitt is tested
over various neighbourhoods and racial surroundings, where the result shows
that the biosocial interplay happened only to predict offending among
non-whites in underprivileged neighbourhoods. It stated that macrolevel
constructional factors seems to lessen the impact of family and individual
risks[50]. It also suggested that the non-whites
live in those neighbourhoods which are environmentally different from those
where poor whites live, hence the perspective worsens due do their differences
at individual level and family disadvantages[51]. As claimed by the researchers in criminology,
the continued growth of biosocial criminological data and the expansion of
biosocial theories is vital to the development of this viewpoint[52].
Lately, some have asserted that biosocial theory can advance the studies of
criminology from one based solely on environmental factors to one that
highlights prevention and understands crime as a public health issue[53].
However, hostility and disagreement surrounds the biosocial approach as it
includes genotyping criminals for genetic risks to explain the cause of
antisocial behaviour and in wrong hands it
can be quite dangerous and lead to preferential treatment of certain genes[54].
Conclusion
The
principal obstacle that needs to be overcome for the biosocial
perspective in criminology to grow and evolve, revolves around the
deficit of educational courses which are dedicated only to biosocial
criminology[55]. The
optimum contribution which biosocial perspective can make to the field of
criminology is to gauge the apprehension of antisocial
behaviours, but the biosocial perspective, even in its short period
of eminence, has already made notable contributions in the field[56].
Firstly, by evincing genetic influences that are inculpated in
the cause of delinquency and crime, and secondly, by throwing light on how
the same environmental factors have very little influence and non-shared
environmental factors constitute up to half of
the antisocial characteristics[57]. Including evolutionary
propositions while forming the social theories of criminology can result
in a paradigm for comprehending criminological science[58]. Understanding the theories from a
diverse set of fields of studies is of great
significance to biosocial criminology and so is amalgamating all of
them into a complete holism[59]. Biosocial criminology is not a field which is
inclusive of all the perspectives in criminology and
is definitely not a research area which is solely
concerned with biological factors on criminal behaviour[60].
In fact, it is quite the opposite, as biosocial criminology automatically
supposes that human conduct is the result of a
convoluted disposition of biological and environmental factors[61].
Therefore, biosocial theory in criminology rests on the idea that behaviour is
not the result of the effects of biological factors solely and
neither it is affected only by the environment[62].
Biosocial criminology has developed as a strong field for
categorising scientific research into a wide, biologically
suffused criminological theory and the paradigm seems to be obtaining
momentum[63]. The significance of this field is profound, not only
for academics and researchers but for policymakers, law enforcement, and
society at large. The potential to better understand the origins of criminal
behaviour and to develop more effective strategies for prevention and rehabilitation
is a compelling prospect. As biosocial criminology gains momentum, it has the
potential to reshape our understanding of criminal behaviour and, ultimately,
contribute to a safer and more just society.
Table of
Cases
1.
James
v. Ryan (2012) 679 F.3d 780 9th
Cir.
2.
Mobley v. The State (1995) 265 Ga. 292 S94P1271
3.
People
v. Beeler (1995) 891P.2d153 Cal.
4.
People v. Weinstein (1992) 591 N.Y.S.2d 715, 156 Misc.2d 34
5.
Poindexter
v. Mitchell (2006) 454 F.3d 564 6th Cir.
6.
United States v. Hinckley (1981) 525 F. Supp.1342
Bibliography
Akers, R.L.
(1998). Social
learning and social structure: a general theory of crime and deviance, Northeastern
University Press.
Barnes, J.C. and Boutwell,
B.B., (2015). Biosocial criminology: The emergence of a new and diverse perspective. Criminal Justice Studies, 28(1), pp.1-5.
Beaver,
K., (2017). Biosocial theories of
crime. Routledge.
Beaver,
K.M., Nedelec, J.L., da Silva Costa, C. and Vidal, M.M., (2015). The future of
biosocial criminology. Criminal Justice
Studies, 28(1),
pp.6-17.
Bedoya,
A. and Portnoy, J., (2022). Biosocial Criminology: History, Theory, Research
Evidence, and Policy. Victims & Offenders,
pp.1-31.
Berryessa,
C.M. and Raine, A., (2018). Neurocriminology. In The Routledge Companion
to Criminological Theory and Concepts (pp. 78-82). Routledge.
Besemer,
S., (2014). The impact of timing and frequency of parental criminal behaviour
and risk factors on offspring offending. Psychology, Crime &
Law, 20(1),
pp.78-99.
Brower,
M.C. and Price, B.H., (2001). Neuropsychiatry of frontal lobe dysfunction in
violent and criminal behaviour: a critical review. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery &
Psychiatry, 71(6),
pp.720-726.
Carrier,
N. and Walby, K., (2014). PTOLEMIZING LOMBROSO THE PSEUDO-REVOLUTION OF
BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY. Journal of Theoretical
& Philosophical Criminology, 6(1).
Fishbein,
D.H., (2017). Biological perspectives in criminology. In Biosocial Theories of Crime (pp. 3-48). Routledge.
Fox,
B., (2017). It's nature and nurture: Integrating biology and genetics into the
social learning theory of criminal behavior. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 49,
pp.22-31.
Goring, C., (1913). The
English convict: A statistical study. HMS.
Guy,
R. and Chomczy?ski, P.A., (2018). Bioethics and biosocial criminology: Hurdling
the status quo. Ethics, Medicine and
Public Health, 7,
pp.95-102.
Harris,
K.M. and McDade, T.W., (2018). The biosocial approach to human development,
behavior, and health across the life course. RSF: The Russell Sage
Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 4(4), pp.2-26.
Hart,
D. and Marmorstein, N.R., (2009). Neighborhoods and genes and everything in
between: Understanding adolescent aggression in social and biological
contexts. Development and Psychopathology, 21(3),
pp.961-973.
Jeffery,
C.R., (1978). Criminology as an interdisciplinary behavioral science. Criminology, 16, p.149.
Needleman,
H., (2004). Lead poisoning. Annual review of
medicine, 55(1),
pp.209-222.
Putkonen,
A., Ryynänen, O.P., Eronen, M. and Tiihonen, J., (2007). Transmission of
violent offending and crime across three generations. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 42(2), pp.94-99.
Quinsey,
V.L., (2002). Evolutionary theory and criminal behaviour. Legal and criminological psychology, 7(1), pp.1-13.
Salas-Wright,
C.P. and Todic, J., (2015). Alcohol and drug misuse as a biosocial source of
crime.
Saunders, G. and McGue, M. (2020)
“Behavioral and Molecular Genetics,” in Wright, A. G. C. and Hallquist, M. N.
(eds) The Cambridge Handbook of
Research Methods in Clinical Psychology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology), pp.
136–152. doi: 10.1017/9781316995808.015.
Scerbo,
A., Raine, A., O'Brien, M., Chan, C.J., Rhee, C. and Smiley, N., (1990). Reward
dominance and passive avoidance learning in adolescent psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 18(4), pp.451-463.
Schwartz,
J.A., (2014). Integrating mainstream
criminological theory into the biosocial perspective: An empirical analysis(Doctoral
dissertation, The Florida State University).
Treiber,
K., (2017). Biosocial criminology and models of criminal decision making. The
Oxford handbook of offender decision making, 6, p.87.
Turner,
M.G., Hartman, J.L. and Bishop, D.M., (2007). The effects of prenatal problems,
family functioning, and neighborhood disadvantage in predicting
life-course-persistent offending. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 34(10),
pp.1241-1261.
Walsh
A, Wright JP. (2015) Biosocial criminology and its discontents: A critical
realist philosophical analysis. Criminal justice studies. Jan 2;28(1):
pp.124-40.
Wells,
J. and Walsh, A., (2019). Biosocial theories in criminology. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and
Criminal Justice.
Wright,
J.P. and Boisvert, D., (2009). What biosocial criminology offers criminology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(11), pp.1228-1240.
Wright,
J.P. and Cullen, F.T., (2012). The future of biosocial criminology: Beyond
scholars’ professional ideology. Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice, 28(3),
pp.237-253.
Wright,
J.P., Boisvert, D. and Vaske, J., (2009). Blood lead levels in early childhood
predict adulthood psychopathy. Youth Violence and
Juvenile Justice, 7(3),
pp.208-222.
[1] Harris,
K.M. and McDade, T.W., (2018). The biosocial approach to human development,
behaviour, and health across the life course. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social
Sciences, 4(4), pp.2-26.
[2] Wright,
J.P. and Boisvert, D., (2009). What biosocial criminology offers criminology. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 36(11), pp.1228-1240.
[3] Beaver, K.,
(2017). Biosocial theories of crime. Routledge.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Treiber,
K., (2017). Biosocial criminology and models of criminal decision making. The
Oxford handbook of offender decision making, 6, p.87.
[6] Carrier,
N. and Walby, K., (2014). PTOLEMIZING LOMBROSO THE PSEUDO-REVOLUTION OF
BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY. Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Criminology, 6(1).
[7] Berryessa, C.M. and Raine, A., (2018).
Neurocriminology. In The Routledge Companion to
Criminological Theory and Concepts (pp. 78-82). Routledge.
[8] Goring, C., (1913). The English convict: A statistical
study.
HMS. p.370
[9] Bedoya,
A. and Portnoy, J., (2022). Biosocial Criminology: History, Theory, Research
Evidence, and Policy. Victims & Offenders, pp.1-31.
[10] Fishbein,
D.H., (2017). Biological perspectives in criminology. In Biosocial
Theories of Crime (pp. 3-48). Routledge.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Wells,
J. and Walsh, A., (2019). Biosocial theories in criminology. In Oxford
Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Saunders, G. and McGue, M. (2020)
“Behavioral and Molecular Genetics,” in Wright, A. G. C. and Hallquist, M. N.
(eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology), pp.
136–152. doi: 10.1017/9781316995808.015.
[15] Quinsey,
V.L., (2002). Evolutionary theory and criminal behaviour. Legal
and criminological psychology, 7(1),
pp.1-13.
[16] Scerbo,
A., Raine, A., O'Brien, M., Chan, C.J., Rhee, C. and Smiley, N., (1990). Reward
dominance and passive avoidance learning in adolescent psychopaths. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 18(4),
pp.451-463.
[17] Brower,
M.C. and Price, B.H., (2001). Neuropsychiatry of frontal lobe dysfunction in
violent and criminal behaviour: a critical review. Journal
of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 71(6),
pp.720-726.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Barnes,
J.C. and Boutwell, B.B., (2015). Biosocial criminology: The emergence of a new
and diverse perspective. Criminal Justice Studies, 28(1),
pp.1-5.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Jeffery,
C.R., (1978). Criminology as an interdisciplinary behavioral science. Criminology, 16,
p.149.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Beaver,
K., (2017). Biosocial theories of crime. Routledge.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Besemer,
S., (2014). The impact of timing and frequency of parental criminal behaviour
and risk factors on offspring offending. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(1),
pp.78-99.
[28] Treiber,
K., (2017). Biosocial criminology and models of criminal decision making. The
Oxford handbook of offender decision making, 6, p.87.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Wright,
J.P., Boisvert, D. and Vaske, J., (2009). Blood lead levels in early childhood
predict adulthood psychopathy. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7(3),
pp.208-222.
[32] Needleman,
H., (2004). Lead poisoning. Annual review of medicine, 55(1),
pp.209-222.
[33] Fox, B.,
(2017). It's nature and nurture: Integrating biology and genetics into the
social learning theory of criminal behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice, 49,
pp.22-31.
[34] Akers, R.L. (1998). Social learning and social structure:
a general theory of crime and deviance, Northeastern
University Press.
[35] Schwartz,
J.A., (2014). Integrating mainstream criminological theory into the
biosocial perspective: An empirical analysis(Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University).
[38] Poindexter v. Mitchell (2006)
454 F.3d 564
6th Cir.
[39] United States v. Hinckley (1981) 525 F. Supp.1342
[40] People v. Weinstein (1992) 591 N.Y.S.2d 715, 156 Misc.2d 34
[41] Putkonen,
A., Ryynänen, O.P., Eronen, M. and Tiihonen, J., (2007). Transmission of
violent offending and crime across three generations. Social
Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 42(2),
pp.94-99.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Hart, D.
and Marmorstein, N.R., (2009). Neighborhoods and genes and everything in
between: Understanding adolescent aggression in social and biological
contexts. Development and Psychopathology, 21(3),
pp.961-973.
[44] Walsh A,
Wright JP. (2015) Biosocial criminology and its discontents: A critical realist
philosophical analysis. Criminal justice studies. Jan 2;28(1): pp.124-40.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Carrier,
N. and Walby, K., (2014). PTOLEMIZING LOMBROSO THE PSEUDO-REVOLUTION OF
BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY. Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Criminology, 6(1).
[48] Ibid.
[50] Turner,
M.G., Hartman, J.L. and Bishop, D.M., (2007). The effects of prenatal problems,
family functioning, and neighborhood disadvantage in predicting
life-course-persistent offending. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(10),
pp.1241-1261.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Guy, R.
and Chomczy?ski, P.A., (2018). Bioethics and biosocial criminology: Hurdling
the status quo. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 7,
pp.95-102.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Ibid.
[55] Beaver,
K.M., Nedelec, J.L., da Silva Costa, C. and Vidal, M.M., (2015). The future of
biosocial criminology. Criminal Justice Studies, 28(1),
pp.6-17.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Ibid.
[58] Salas-Wright,
C.P. and Todic, J., (2015). Alcohol and drug misuse as a biosocial source of
crime.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Barnes,
J.C. and Boutwell, B.B., (2015). Biosocial criminology: The emergence of a new
and diverse perspective. Criminal Justice Studies, 28(1),
pp.1-5.
[61] Ibid.
[62] Ibid.
[63] Wright,
J.P. and Cullen, F.T., (2012). The future of biosocial criminology: Beyond
scholars’ professional ideology. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 28(3),
pp.237-253.
Article Information
EXPLORING THE EVOLUTION OF BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY: SOCIOHISTORICAL ORIGINS, CORE ASSUMPTIONS, AND ITS TRANSFORMATIVE INFLUENCE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE PRACTICES
Authors: PRABHBIR SINGH MANN
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/10/17
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.