# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Believing essentially that criminality was inherited and that criminals could be identified by physical attributes such as hawk-like noses and bloodshot eyes, Lombroso was one of the first people in history to use scientific methods to study crime. Lombroso is the subject of a historical novel by former criminal barrister Diana Bretherick. Here, writing for History Extra, Bretherick tells you everything you need to know about him, and explains why his influence on today's study of crime cannot be ignored...
It began in Italy in 1871 with a meeting between a criminal and a scientist. The criminal was a man named Giuseppe Villella, a notorious Calabrian thief and arsonist. The scientist was an army doctor called Cesare Lombroso, who had begun his career working in lunatic asylums and had then become interested in crime and criminals while studying Italian soldiers. Now he was trying to pinpoint the differences between lunatics, criminals and normal individuals by examining inmates in Italian prisons.

Lombroso found Villella interesting, given his extraordinary agility and cynicism as well as his tendency to boast of his escapades and abilities. After Villella's death, Lombroso conducted a post-mortem and discovered that his subject had an indentation at the back of his skull, which resembled that found in apes. Lombroso concluded from this evidence, as well as that from other criminals he had studied, that some were born with a propensity to offend and were also savage throwbacks to early man. This discovery was the beginning of Lombroso's work as a criminal anthropologist.

Lombroso wrote: "At the sight of that skull, I seemed to see all of a sudden, lighted up as a vast plain under a flaming sky, the problem of the nature of the criminal - an atavistic being who reproduces in his person the ferocious instincts of primitive humanity and the inferior animals.

"Thus were explained anatomically the enormous jaws, high cheek bones, prominent superciliary arches, solitary lines in the palms, extreme size of the orbits, handle shaped or sessile ears found in criminals, savages and apes, insensibility to pain, extremely acute sight, tattooing, excessive idleness, love of orgies and the irresistible craving for evil for its own sake, the desire not only to extinguish life in the victim, but to mutilate the corpse, tear its flesh, and drink its blood."

Essentially, Lombroso believed that criminality was inherited and that criminals could be identified by physical defects that confirmed them as being atavistic or savage. A thief, for example, could be identified by his expressive face, manual dexterity, and small, wandering eyes. Habitual murderers meanwhile had cold, glassy stares, bloodshot eyes and big hawk-like noses, and rapists had 'jug ears'. Lombroso did not, however, confine his views to male criminals - he co-wrote his first book to examine the causes of female crime, and concluded, among other things, that female criminals were far more ruthless than male; tended to be lustful and immodest; were shorter and more wrinkled; and had darker hair and smaller skulls than 'normal' women. They did, however, suffer from less baldness, said Lombroso. Women who committed crimes of passion had prominent lower jaws and were more wicked than their male counterparts, he concluded.

Inspired by his discovery, Lombroso continued his work and produced the first of five editions of Criminal Man in 1876. As a result Lombroso became known as the father of modern criminology. One of the first to realise that crime and criminals could be studied scientifically, Lombroso's theory of the born criminal dominated thinking about criminal behaviour in the late 19th and early 20th century.

For thousands of years until that point, the dominant view had been that, as crime was a sin against God, it should be punished in a fitting manner - 'an eye for an eye', and so forth. During the Enlightenment, thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham the and Italian Cesare Beccaria decided that, as we were all rational beings, the choice to commit an offence was taken by weighing up the costs and benefits. If the costs were made high with harsh penalties then this would put off all but the most determined of criminals.

This was an interesting philosophy, but critics noted its flaws - not everyone is rational, and some crimes, particularly violent ones, are purely emotional, they said. Lombroso and his fellow criminal anthropologists also challenged these ideas, and were the first to advocate the study of crime and criminals from a scientific perspective. In particular, Lombroso supported its use in criminal investigation and one of his assistants, Salvatore Ottolenghi, founded the first School of Scientific Policing in Rome in 1903.

Throughout his career, Lombroso not only drew on the work of other criminal anthropologists throughout Europe, but also conducted many of his own experiments in order to prove his theories. These involved using bizarre contraptions to measure various body parts, and also more abstract things like sensitivity to pain and a propensity to tell untruths. Indeed, Lombroso eventually developed a rudimentary prototype of the lie detector.

Lombroso used various pieces of equipment for different purposes. A hydrosphygmograph, for example, was used to study changes in blood pressure in his subjects, who included criminals with long records of offending, and 'normal' subjects. While their left arm was attached to the machine and the right to an induction coil called a Ruhmkorff, subjects would be exposed to various stimuli - both unpleasant, such as electric shocks and the sound of the firing of a pistol, and pleasant, for example music, food, money, or a picture of a nude woman.

The problem was that the recording of the results was sometimes chaotic, which made the conclusions drawn unreliable, to say the least. To make matters worse, Lombroso tended to draw on unusual evidence to add weight to his theories, such as old proverbs, and anecdotes told to him by friends and colleagues over the years. This left his work vulnerable to attack by critics across Europe. All of this, perhaps, reflects the sort of man Lombroso was: capricious, ebullient and probably maddening to work for - although, one would imagine, never dull.

A familiar face

Lombroso was a well-known personality in Italy, giving sell-out lectures and talks, and commenting on all kinds of things in the popular press. He was interested in many things, and sometimes had difficulty in focusing on one thing at a time. One of his daughters, Paola, described a typical day in his life: "...composing on the typewriter, correcting proofs, running from Bocca (his publisher) to the typesetter, from the typesetter to the library and from the library to the laboratory in a frenzy of movement...; and in the evening, not tired and wanting to go to the theatre, to a peregrination of two or three of the city's theatres, taking in the first act at one, paying a flying visit to another and finishing the evening in a third."

Lombroso was endlessly curious about crime, criminals and their motivation for offending, as well as their culture. As a result, he collected artefacts created by and belonging to prisoners that he had encountered during his long career. He also had in his possession death masks from various criminals who had been executed, as well as many skeletons and skulls. Initially, these were housed at his home and then at the University of Turin where he worked. In 1892 Lombroso opened a museum for these artefacts. This closed in 1914, but reopened in Turin in 2010 and is well worth a visit. One of the most prominent exhibits was Lombroso's head in a jar of preservative, which he agreed would be donated upon his death (in 1909).

A couple viewing the head of Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso preserved in a jar of formalin at an exhibition in Bologna, 1978. (Photo by Romano Cagnoni/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

An early sexologist

Lombroso's other interests included hypnotism and the paranormal, particularly spiritualism. He has also been described as an early sexologist, given that he was one of the first to examine and catalogue sexual practices. His work Criminal Woman (1893) included sections on adultery, frigidity, lesbianism, masturbation and premarital sex, as well as a discussion on the causes and characteristics of prostitution.

According to Lombroso, his interest in the occult began when, in 1882, he was asked to examine the 14-year-old daughter of a family friend. She was thought to be suffering from hysteria and had been vomiting, sleepwalking and complaining of fatigue. Lombroso concluded this girl was able to see into the future and also to describe what others were doing when they were far away. She was apparently also able to see, read and smell with other parts of her body. Lombroso could offer no explanation for this.

Another famous example was what he described as the case of the haunted cellar. Here he was called in by a family of wine merchants who believed one of their wine cellars was under attack from invisible entities. When Lombroso visited, he went down to the cellar and waited to see what happened. Bottles began to fall and by the time he left Lombroso had witnessed 15 being broken. Again, he was unable to offer an explanation for what he had seen.

As well as breaking new ground in his work on criminals, Lombroso has also been described as a founding father of parapsychology [a pseudoscience concerned with the investigation of paranormal and psychic phenomena which includes telepathy, near-death experiences and reincarnation]. He investigated a psychic medium called Eusapia Palladino, participating in seances led by her. In one, which took place in 1892 and saw the medium tied to a camp bed, a number of spirits seem to have presented themselves. This persuaded Lombroso, among other witnesses, that the spiritual world was a reality, and he considered it a duty to establish beyond doubt (with the assistance of science) that ghosts were real.

Lombroso's last book, published after his death, was a discussion of the biology of the spiritual world. Unsurprisingly it had a mixed reception, and his research into ghosts, poltergeists, telepathy and levitation appropriately disappeared into the ether. It did, however, add to the general discrediting of Lombroso's ideas over the years, and for some time his work was viewed as being more of curiosity value than anything else. This was accentuated by the increasing popularity of eugenics and the use of biological theories of crime by the Nazis to justify the murder millions of people. In the postwar period other, more sociological, explanations for criminal behaviour became more popular, and thus biological theories were largely rejected.

However, in recent years bio-criminology has re-emerged, largely due to Lombroso's legacy. He introduced the idea that criminality was not a matter of sin or free will, but could instead be a medical problem that needed to be examined by experts in that field. Lombroso also advocated examining the criminal as an individual rather than focusing on the crime alone.

In addition to his pioneering work on the female offender, Lombroso was one of the first to use scientific methods to study crime, and he inspired many others to do the same. Today, neuro-criminology draws on some of Lombroso's theories to explore causes of criminal behaviour - examining, for example, whether or not brain injuries or genetic abnormalities can lead to criminality or whether violence can be caused by a clinical disorder. Recent studies have found that there may be a genetic origin for violent crime, and that personality traits including criminality can be deduced from facial features. The born criminal, it seems, might not be such a ridiculous idea after all.
Diana Bretherick is a lecturer in criminology and criminal justice at the University of Portsmouth, and the author of The Devil's Daughters (Orion, 2015), which features Cesare Lombroso as a character investigating a series of abductions and murders while he begins his research into criminal women. Bretherick was a criminal barrister for 10 years before becoming an academic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 'born criminal'? Lombroso and the origins of modern criminology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Believing essentially that criminality was inherited and that criminals could be identified by physical attributes such as hawk-like noses and bloodshot eyes, Lombroso was one of the first people in history to use scientific methods to study crime. Lombroso is the subject of a historical novel by former criminal barrister Diana Bretherick.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Forensic Psychology Student Workbook Part 2

# data[].attributes.headline
Short video on genetic explanation XYY chromosome

# data[].attributes.subject
Short video on genetic explanation XYY chromosome

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this Crime Time REMIX clip, Dr. James Fallon discusses a gene that has been found to be a contributing factor in aggression and helps create a behavior that can lead to outrageous aggression and violence. He also talks about what happened when Eli Roth came to have his genes read.

# data[].attributes.body
6 minutes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Discuss the role of genetics in offending behaviour

# data[].attributes.body
Brain structure (PFC and limbic system)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This highly acclaimed criminology text presents an up-to-date review of rational choice theories, including deterrence, shaming, and routine activities. It also incorporates current examples of deterrence research regarding domestic violence, drunk driving, and capital punishment, and features thought-provoking discussion of the relativity of crime. The authors explore the crime problem, its context, and causes of crime.

# data[].attributes.body
Read highlighted text - focus on discussion of frontal lobes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
biological factors in offending anotated

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetic Background of Violence Tiihonen et al 2014

# data[].attributes.body
Has something about everything!

# data[].attributes.body
MAOA gene

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dr Mairi Levitt looks at how lawyers are increasingly looking to use defendants' genes to defend criminal behaviour, despite the evidence for its use being largely unconvincing
Reducing a convicted murderer's sentence because they have certain genes sounds a little far-fetched, but it has already happened. In Italy and the US, a common genetic variant, present in around a third of Caucasian men, has been successfully used in the defence of violent criminals. Yet both the science and the ethics of the issue are still very much under debate.

The variant in question is an allele conveying low activity of monoamine oxidase A (MAOA)[1], an enzyme involved in regulating the metabolism of several neurotransmitters, including dopamine and serotonin, which influence brain function ( Shih et al.,1999).

The first attempt to use evidence of MAOA levels as a mitigating factor for a convicted murderer was in the US in 1994. Research published the previous year had found no MAOA function in five male members of a Dutch family who exhibited low IQ and abnormal violent behaviour ( Brunner et al., 1993). The MAOA gene is X-linked, and these men and others in successive generations all exhibited problem behaviour including impulsive aggression, arson and rape.

The defence team representing convicted murderer Stephen Mobley sought advice from researchers involved in the Dutch family study. Mobley had an above average IQ, but a family history of males who either exhibited violent and antisocial behaviour or were successful businessmen, such as Mobley's father. The defence lawyers asked for a gene test for MAOA function in an attempt to commute the death penalty to a life sentence. This was refused on the grounds that the genetic research referred to did not meet the required standards for permissible scientific evidence. Mobley was executed in 2005.

An absence of MAOA function is thought to be extremely rare, but the low activity MAOA variant has been dubbed the 'warrior gene'. Controversial research has found a high incidence among Maori men (56% in a small study) and this figure was used to explain problems of risk taking behaviour, aggression and violent crime ( Lea and Chambers, 2007). Extensive critical coverage followed the reports, focusing on alternative socioeconomic explanations under media headlines such as: "White justice blamed for Maori conviction rate". Other research papers have linked the MAOA variant to various forms of risky behaviour and to gang membership (Beaver, 2009).

Yet there are a number of huge problems when making assumptions about the link between certain gene variants and criminal behaviour. First, very different types of behaviour may be defined as antisocial, aggressive or violent depending on the particular context and historical period. And a gene variant that is present in a substantial proportion of the male population doesn't have strong explanatory power on its own. As with other complex behaviours, researchers are looking at the interplay of genetic and environmental factors.

In an influential study that has been replicated, Caspi et al. (2002a) took the environmental factor of childhood maltreatment and the genetic MAOA factor, both of which are associated with antisocial behaviour in adulthood, and using data collected in the Dunedin birth cohort study, antisocial behaviour was assessed when the white male subjects were age 26 [1].

Twelve per cent of men with low activity MAOA genotype had experienced maltreatment in childhood, but were responsible for 44% of the convictions for violence. Of those with the genetic and environmental indicator, 85% developed some form of antisocial behaviour. Those who were not maltreated were unlikely to display adult antisocial behaviour. For those maltreated but with high levels of MAOA functioning, the genetic factor seemed to have a protective effect against later antisocial behaviour.

Since the Mobley case, evidence on MAOA levels has been brought into criminal courts. In the first Italian case, Abdelmalek Bayout stabbed a man to death who he claimed had insulted him. On appeal, his sentence was cut by one year, when evidence was produced that said he had the MAOA trait associated with violent behaviour. The research referred to at the trial did not include Bayout's ethnic group (he was Algerian) and no evidence about his childhood environment was presented ( Times newspaper report, 2009). And in the Caspi et al. study, those with low levels of MAOA and no childhood maltreatment were actually found to be less aggressive.
Genes and responsibility for behaviour
It is likely that MAOA research will be seen in UK courts in the future and judges and juries will be asked to consider its relevance. So far, such evidence has been introduced in the offender's interests, but it is not obvious why such a genetic factor would reduce individual responsibility. Instead, it could make individuals more responsible (and blameworthy) once they have the information about their genetic risk. If they fail to act on the information, they might be held to be responsible for the consequences, in the same way as someone who continues to drive while suffering from a condition that causes unpredictable blackouts. The genetic trait could be seen as making an offender more dangerous and potentially liable to more severe penalties (that is, longer sentences) to protect the public ( Denno, 2009; Levitt, 2013).

To be held morally responsible, there has to be a possibility that the person could have chosen to act differently. If there is really no choice, then the person may not be morally (or legally) responsible and is not usually thought to be worthy of blame or praise. Free will can be defined as the capacity to choose rationally from alternative actions. When human beings make choices, they choose from the practical alternatives available to them in their present situation.

It may be harder for some men, like Bayout, to refrain from criminal violence than it is for others; everyone is subject to genetic, biological and environmental influences and could be said to have genetic and environmental good luck or bad luck. Despite these differences, the legal system holds most people responsible for their actions if they are over the age of criminal responsibility and are sane[2]. Legal responsibility is a status assigned to an individual not an empirical description, and is key to the operation of the modern legal system ( Barnes, 2003).

It is now acknowledged that gene and environmental interactions affect behaviour, and no doubt research will continue to find correlations between specific forms of behaviour, environmental factors and genetic traits that may or may not be replicated. Epigenetics complicates the idea of a gene environment or nature-nurture divide still further with the findings that nurture can influence not only behaviour and health in later life, but also in subsequent generations ( Buchen, 2010).

Evidence of genetic traits in the normal range, such as MAOA variants, have most commonly been presented as mitigating evidence in an attempt to avoid a death sentence in the US. The combination of a genetic trait and childhood maltreatment has been correlated with an increased incidence of violent and antisocial behaviour. It does not provide a causal link between the gene environment interaction and the specific act for which a suspect is put on trial.

Since childhood maltreatment and other environmental risk factors are already presented in mitigation in UK courts, particularly where the offenders are children, it seems likely that a defence team will also bring forward evidence of low-activity MAOA in an attempt to help their client. The jury is out on what the future holds.

1 As females have two copies of the X chromosome, they don't neatly divide into low and high groups. Nearly half have a low-high MAOA combination and it is not known which allele is active in an individual. Only 12% of women had the low-low variant (see Caspi et al, 2002b).
2 Criminal liability requires that the individual committed the wrongful act or omission (actus rea) voluntarily and knew what they were doing, had a wrongful state of mind (mens rea). 'Voluntarily' does not imply that the person necessarily wanted to do it, but that the act was done under the person's control.

References
Barnes, B. Genes, agents and the institution of responsible action. New Genetics and Society 21(3), 291-302 (2003).

Beaver, K. M. et al. Monoamine oxidase A genotype is associated with gang membership and weapon use. Compr. Psychiatry 51(2), 130-134 (2009).

Brunner, H. G. et al. Abnormal behavior associated with a point mutation in the structural gene for monoamine oxidase A. Science 262, 578-580. (1993).

Buchen, L. In their nature. Nature 467, 146-148 (2010).

Caspi, A. et al. Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science 297(5582), 851-854 (2002a).

Caspi, A. et al. Supplementary material. Description of methods and measurements used in the Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study. Science 297 (2002b).

Denno, D. W. "Behavioral Genetics Evidence in Criminal Cases: 1994-2007" in Farahany N. A. (ed) The impact of behavioral sciences on criminal law (Oxford University Press, chapter 10, 2009).

Lea, R. & Chambers, G. Monamine oxidase, addiction and the 'warrior' gene hypothesis. New Zealand Medical Journal 120, 1250 (2007).

Levitt, M. Genes, environment and responsibility for violent behaviour: "Whatever genes one has it is preferable that you are prevented from going around stabbing people". New Genetics and Society 32(1), 4-17 (2013).

Shih, J. C et al. Monoamine oxidase: from genes to behaviour. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 22,197-217 (1999).

Dr Mairi Levitt is a senior lecturer at Lancaster University. Her research is in the field of bioethics, focusing on the implications of genetics and medical technologies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr Mairi Levitt looks at how lawyers are increasingly looking to use defendants' genes to defend criminal behaviour, despite the evidence for its use being largely unconvincing Reducing a convicted murderer's sentence because they have certain genes sounds a little far-fetched, but it has already happened.

# data[].attributes.body
Fifteen years of painstaking research revealed that a family in the Netherlands where all the men had a history of violence all lacked the same gene. This gene produces an enzyme called MAOA, which regulates the levels of neurotransmitters involved in impulse control. It turns out that if you lack the MAOA gene or have the low-activity variant you are predisposed to violence. This variant became known as the warrior gene. About 30% of men have this so-called warrior gene, but whether the gene is triggered or not depends crucially on what happens to you in childhood. The explanation is that some people are protected from a potentially violent legacy by a happy childhood. "If you've the high-risk form of the gene and you were abused early on in life, your chances of a life of crime are much higher. If you have the high-risk gene but you weren't abused, then there really wasn't much risk. So just a gene by itself, the variant doesn't really dramatically affect behaviour, but under certain environmental conditions there is a big difference".

# data[].attributes.headline
Source 4: Neural Explanation AO1 and AO3

# data[].attributes.subject
Source 4: Neural Explanation AO1 and AO3

# data[].attributes.body
Neurotransmitters and Neural structure

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Neurotransmitters and Offending Behaviour

Two key neurotransmitters are seen to have a role in offending behaviour:

Serotonin - this neurotransmitter has been inked to mood and impulsiveness.

Moir and Jessel (1995) cite a number of human and animal studies which suggest a link between low levels of serotonin and aggression, which is linked to criminal behaviour.

Scerbo and Raine (1993) conducted a meta-analysis on 29 pieces of research into anti-social adults and children, finding in all cases, low levels of serotonin.

Dopamine - has been identified as it is linked to the dopaminergic pathway, which results in pleasure, which is a rewarding feeling and a desire to repeat certain behaviours. This is why dopamine has been linked to addiction and substance abuse, and therefore through this it has an indirect link to criminal behaviour.

Buitelaar (2003) found that juvenile delinquents given dopamine antagonists which reduce levels of dopamine, showed a decrease in aggressive behaviour.

Couppis (2008) argues that some individuals who engage in certain criminal behaviours may experience an increase in dopamine and as a result seek out such experiences again due to the reward feeling.

Neurophysiology and Offending Behaviour

Specific parts of the brain have been highlighted as important in terms of criminal behaviour, including:

Amygdala - the amygdala is part of the limbic system, which is regarded as an older region of the brain in an evolutionary sense; therefore, it comes as no surprise that many of the structures within the limbic system are seen to have some sort of survival benefit. The amygdala in particular has been identified as a structure with links to emotion regulation and aggression.

Frontal lobes - the frontal lobes, part of the neocortex (neo being "new" in an evolutionary sense), have been linked to higher function such as social behaviours and planning.

Brower and Price (2001) found a link between frontal lobe dysfunction and violent crime.

Kandel and Freed (1989) looked at frontal lobe damage and anti-social behaviour, finding that there was a tendency for such individuals to exhibit emotional instability, a failure to consider the consequences of their actions or to adapt their behaviour in response to external cues. These traits would seemingly be a result of impaired functioning in the frontal lobes, a region responsible for planning behaviour.

Key Study: Raine et al. (1997)

Aim: To identify brain regions specific to offenders charged with murder or manslaughter, who had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

Method: The participants were 41 murderers (2 female) who had been charged with murder or manslaughter and had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. The researchers used a (positron emission tomography) PET scanning method to highlight areas of brain activity and these results were compared to an age and gender matched control group.

Results: They found reduced activity for the offender group in areas such as the prefrontal cortex and corpus callosum (the nerve fibres responsible for swift communication between the hemispheres). Additionally, there were abnormalities in the activity of the limbic system, including the amygdala and thalamus.

Conclusion: There is indication that offenders (specifically violent offenders) have abnormal brain function when compared to normal controls. As there is largely reduced activity, it would suggest that the brains of offenders are slowed and perhaps unable to make the swift decisions to react appropriately in certain situations. For example, the frontal lobes are linked to planning behaviour; therefore, perhaps the decreased prefrontal cortex activity indicates that offenders are unable to consider the consequences of their actions and control their behaviour.

Evaluation of Neural Explanations

The neurochemical explanations of offending behaviour have been criticised for being overly simplistic. The links between abnormal levels of a certain neurotransmitter and offending behaviour, often centre around violent and aggressive behaviour, which does not explain all types of crime. This is important because it lacks the complexity necessary to understand why individuals commit crimes such as burglary or drug dealing, which aren't necessarily violent or aggressive in nature.

The nature of some of the research into neurochemistry and neurophysiology is often correlational, which means that there is no clear way to show cause and effect. For example, the low levels of serotonin found in offenders could be a cause of offending behaviour, but they could also be the effect of it. Similarly, the structural brain abnormalities found in Raine et al. (1997), could be a cause of offending behaviour or the result of some environmental factor, which in turn makes them more likely to become a criminal. This matters because it highlights the complexity of the relationship between biology and behaviour and suggests that further investigation is required.
One criticism of neural explanations of offending behaviour is that they can be considered reductionist. For example, where researchers look at the way a neurotransmitter or brain region might contribute to offending behaviour, they are overlooking other important factors, such as how the environment might have an impact on these areas as well. That being said, such researchers will argue that to be reductionist allows a more straightforward investigation to be conducted as it would be nearly impossible to disentangle all of the possible explanations and their interactions and investigate them scientifically.This is important to consider as while reducing complex behaviour to its simplest form does require researchers to overlook key factors, it is also essential for good scientific practice.

Critical Thinking

Nature or nurture? A key debate in the discussion of offending behaviour is whether it is a result of nature or nature. The evidence above presents the case for nature, but arguments from the nurture perspective should not be ignored and the interaction between the two should not be overlooked. For example, Lombroso's theory and research had clear implications for the criminal justice system. If offenders are, as Lombroso argues, not responsible for their crimes then how should they be punished, particularly if they cannot control their actions due to their physical make up?

Free will and criminal responsibility. An important issue with any area of research such as this is that if we conclude that biology is a key part of offending behaviour, then there is a question mark over who is criminally responsible. To view offending behaviour as biologically predetermined is seen as deterministic, since the argument follows that such an individual is determined by an internal factor, in this case genetics/physiology. If that is the case, as Lombroso argued, can they be held responsible for their crimes, since they are unable to control their biology? In this instance, the case of Charles Whitman is a thought provoking one. On 1 st August 1966, Whitman murdered his wife and his mother and then climbed a tower on the campus of the University of Texas where he was studying, and shot 45 people, killing 13. During the ensuing shoot-out with law enforcement, he was shot and killed by a police officer. Later, notes written by Charles were discovered around his house, including one which read; "It was after much thought that I decided to kill my wife, Kathy...I love her dearly...I cannot rationally pinpoint any specific reason for doing this". A post-mortem of Whitman's brain found a tumour the size of a walnut pressing on his amygdala. The conclusion was drawn that perhaps this was the cause of his sudden extreme violence, since the amygdala has been linked to aggression and emotion regulation. But if this is the case, where does the responsibility lie?

For More Study Notes...

To keep up-to-date with the tutor2u Psychology team, follow us on Twitter@tutor2uPsych, Facebook / OCR / Student or subscribe to the Psychology Daily Digest and get new content delivered to your inbox!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Neural Explanations of Offending Behaviour | tutor2u Psychology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two key neurotransmitters are seen to have a role in offending behaviour: Serotonin - this neurotransmitter has been inked to mood and impulsiveness. Moir and Jessel (1995) cite a number of human and animal studies which suggest a link between low levels of serotonin and aggression, which is linked to criminal behaviour.

# data[].attributes.body
On the first day of August 1966, Charles Whitman took an elevator to the top floor of the University of Texas Tower in Austin. The 25-year-old climbed the stairs to the observation deck, lugging with him a footlocker full of guns and ammunition. At the top, he killed a receptionist with the butt of his rifle. Two families of tourists came up the stairwell; he shot at them at point-blank range. Then he began to fire indiscriminately from the deck at people below. By the time the police shot him dead, Whitman had killed 13 people and wounded 32 more. The story of his rampage dominated national headlines the next day. And when police went to investigate his home for clues, the story became even stranger: in the early hours of the morning on the day of the shooting, he had murdered his mother and stabbed his wife to death in her sleep. Whitman’s body was taken to the morgue, his skull was put under the bone saw, and the medical examiner lifted the brain from its vault. He discovered that Whitman’s brain harboured a tumour the diameter of a nickel. This tumour, called a glioblastoma, had blossomed from beneath a structure called the thalamus, impinged on the hypothalamus, and compressed a third region called the amygdala. The amygdala is involved in emotional regulation, especially of fear and aggression.In humans, activity in the amygdala increases when people are shown threatening faces, are put into frightening situations, or experience social phobias.

# data[].attributes.headline
Source 5: American Psychological Association article 

# data[].attributes.subject
Source 5: American Psychological Association article 

# data[].attributes.body
The amygadala

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research finds violent offenders may have similar brain structure and function and we might be able to intervene and prevent criminal behavior.

# data[].attributes.body
In the 1870s Dr Cesare Lombroso, sometimes called the father of scientific criminology, was studying criminals imprisoned in Turin. He became convinced that criminals are a step back down the evolutionary ladder, a reversion to a primitive or subhuman type of man, with ‘atavistic’ features. He decided, after years of study, that you could tell a criminal by the shape of their face and the excessive length of their ape-like arms. "A criminal's ears are often of a large size. The nose is frequently upturned or of a flattened character in thieves. In murderers it is often aquiline like the beak of a bird of prey." He believed that criminal types shared facial features, such as large canine teeth, long, sloping foreheads, large ears, chin abnormalities. His work on criminality influenced developments throughout Europe and the US, but has largely been discredited since.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Premenstrual syndrome, or PMS, is sometimes blamed for female behaviour that may otherwise be considered inexcusable. Thousands of jokes surround the topic, and the syndrome has even been used in court to successfully defend criminal charges.

But is PMS really the culprit? And should it be a valid legal defence?
The history of PMS in court
UK courts are not strangers to PMS. From the 1950s onward, PMS has been used as a defence, or a mitigating factor, for offences ranging from shoplifting to murder.

One such case, decided in England in the early 1980s, concerned barmaid Sandie Craddock.

Ms Craddock had many prior convictions and, in a fit of rage, killed a fellow barmaid.

Combing through her lengthy criminal history, it became apparent that something happened to Ms Craddock that "turned her into an animal each month and forced her to act out of character".

The argument, of course, was that PMS caused her to act out of character. As a result of that submission, Craddock was found 'not guilty' of murder but guilty of manslaughter due to diminished responsibility. She was placed on court-ordered progesterone.
Other countries
The UK is not the only place where PMS has been raised during criminal trials.

One woman in the US successfully avoided a drink driving conviction due to her lawyer's argument that PMS had aggravated the effects of the alcohol.

And in a Canadian case, the defendant's psychiatrist was willing to categorise her as legally insane due to the effects of PMS - and therefore not capable of murder.

Australian courts have never seen PMS as a defence or partial defence; in other words, something that disproves a defendant's guilt, or reduces a charge of murder to manslaughter.

However, PMS has been raised as a mitigating factor in Australian courts. A 'mitigating factor' is something that is taken into account during the sentencing process and can result in a more lenient penalty.
Research
Several studies during the 1970s and 80s suggest a link between females offending and PMS. They essentially found that more offences were committed during a female's premenstrual week than at any other time of the month.

So does this mean that PMS is responsible for many offences committed by females?

And equally, can high levels of testosterone be blamed for violence by men?

Let's take a quick look at how the defences of mental illness and diminished responsibility work:
Mental capacity to commit a crime
In order to be found guilty of a crime, a defendant must first have the mental capacity to understand their actions. This has been recognised for some time in our legal system, and it is well accepted that people who do not have the requisite mental capacity do not belong in the courts.

Accordingly, those who are mentally ill may be diverted into programs where they can receive the treatment they need.

For some, the prospect of PMS as a defence was welcomed - many women who suffered from severe PMS felt relieved that they were suffering from something that was recognisable and 'real.'

However, amongst criminal defence lawyers in Australia, it appears to be generally accepted that PMS does not make a woman insane.

It is also generally recognised that PMS occurs on a spectrum - some women will experience few if any symptoms, while others will be seriously affected.

Symptoms of PMS can include anxiety, irritability, tension, abnormal social interactions, rapid mood changes and depression - but insanity, even temporary, does not appear to be one of them. And symptoms on the most severe side of the scale will only be experienced by a small percentage of women on a regular basis.
Diminished responsibility
As mentioned, a person must have the requisite mental capacity in order to be guilty of an offence, but of course there is no clear line between so-called 'insanity' and certain acute mental health conditions. As a result, the partial defence of diminished responsibility emerged.

Diminished responsibility is distinct from a complete lack of capacity but will affect a person's ability to make rational judgments as well as to control their actions in accordance with these rational judgments.

Diminished responsibility has been replaced in NSW with the partial defence of "substantial impairment by abnormality of the mind." Abnormality of mind means that the state of mind of the defendant must be so abnormal that a reasonable person would classify it as such.

A defendant's responsibility does not need to be destroyed altogether - but it must be "substantially impaired".
Problems with PMS as a defence
The use of PMS as a defence has attracted many critics - including sceptics who claim it is too easy to fake, and feminists who argue that any defence which implies that a woman turns "into an animal each month" is incredibly offensive and damaging to women in general, and can imply that women are weak-willed and irrational.

At the same time, there is an argument that if PMS can be used as a defence for women, then men should be allowed to use evidence of high levels and fluctuations in testosterone as a defence against violent crimes such as assault and murder. The argument is that both PMS and male aggression are linked to hormones - and that to refuse evidence of levels and fluctuations of a hormone that is linked to aggression (testosterone) when fluctuations in female hormones are being used as a defence is unfair; or to put it another way, 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander'.

But would it be acceptable for a man to justify, for example, bashing a woman because his testosterone levels were high?
The feminist perspective
In 1981, Deborah Wardley fought to overcome sexism and get a job as a pilot.

Wardley went to the Australian High Court to argue against Ansett's discrimination against female pilots. She submitted that the airline refused to hire her as a pilot because her menstrual cycle would make her unsuitable.

From a feminist perspective, it might be argued that any defence which seeks to imply women are incapable of rational thought is inherently demeaning - and would be a step backwards in the fight for equality. In other words, implying that some women lack capacity each month to the point where they are not responsible for their actions may be damaging to women in general.

PMS into the courtroom is therefore a double-edged sword - perhaps appearing at first to be a positive step towards recognising the reasons behind female offending, but doing more harm than good to women in the long run.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Premenstrual syndrome, or PMS, is sometimes blamed for female behaviour that may otherwise be considered inexcusable. Thousands of jokes surround the topic, and the syndrome has even been used in court to successfully defend criminal charges. But is PMS really the culprit? And should it be a valid legal defence?

# data[].attributes.body
One physiological theory suggested that some crime might be attributable to a chromosomal abnormality. Sex is determined by the pattern of a person’s sex chromosomes: XX in a woman, XY in a man. It is a Y chromosome that makes a person male. It is well known that atypical chromosomal combinations can result in atypical sexual development. Since men are more aggressive than women, it might be that men who have XYY chromosomes might be more aggressive than other men and hence more likely to commit violent crimes. The idea was advanced that offender populations in prisons and hospitals would be likely to contain large numbers of XYY men. Some claims were made that high profile, prolific offenders, such as the American serial killer Arthur Shawcross, had the XYY pattern. It was eventually established that XYY men are rare in the general population but more common in the offender population (Howitt, 2009).

Whilst this is as expected, the problem is that XYY men tend to commit non violent crime, not violent crime as the XYY hypothesis predicts (Epps, 1995). Why might this be? Testosterone levels amongst XYY men are no different from XY men, and they are no more aggressive than the general population. However, they are at a substantially increased risk of developmental delay and learning difficulties (Graham et al, 2007). There is a small association between learning difficulties and criminal behaviour. IQ scores amongst convicted offenders are marginally lower than the general population (Hollin, 1992) and there is a slightly higher prevalence of mild learning difficulties amongst offender groups (Lund, 1990). It might therefore be the case that the higher than expected number of XYY men in the offender population is a consequence of the learning difficulties associated with the condition.

# data[].attributes.headline
 Using neural explanation in criminal defence

# data[].attributes.subject
 Using neural explanation in criminal defence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Using the Neural Explanation in Criminal Defence