What Is Biosocial Theory?

Biological Theories have been related to crime for a long time. The Biological Theory talks about how one’s brain has an impact on committing crime or not. Dr. Jim Fallon, a neuroscientist from California talks about the biological influences in a brain. He believes that the combination of three major aspects can determine whether someone is psychopathic or not. Fallon states a combination of genes, damage to the person 's brain and the environment surrounding the individual will have the biggest impact on a person (Fallon, 2009). A real world example of the biological theory in full effect was the crimes of David Berkowitz, aka “Son of Sam. Berkowitz was accused and found guilty of killing over 6 people in New York City. After being convicted and locked up for a few years, studies had shown that Berkowitz had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Berkowitz also claimed that his neighbor’s dog, Sam had told him to do the killings as well (Biography). Comparing the Biological theory to my own life was pretty simple because there is a genetic factor that runs in my dad’s side and that is tempers. Tempers tend to flare fairly easy, and luckily so far there has no issues with the law, however like Fallon had said, with the right combination, anyone is possible to commit a crime at any time. I feel like in a biological theory, this would have a major impact on my life

Violence take multiple forms, many of which are covered in the nightly news. Murder, rape, familial abuse, bullying, workplace hostility, armed robbery—all of these are societal problems with far-reaching repercussions. There have long debates and discussions regarding whether nature or nurture influences individual violent behavior. People are concerned about what makes an individual to engage in violent behavior such murder or burglary among other types of crimes. They are also concerned about what makes people stop such behavior. However, there is no precise conception whether nature, nurture or both influence violence. Some people assume that, violent behavior results from individual’s life experiences or upbringing also known as nurture. Others feel that violent behavior is more complex and results from individual’s genetic character or nature. In other words, it is not clear whether violent behavior is inborn or occurs at some point in persons’ lives, but even it’s hard, emphasizing one and ignoring other influences is always an unwise way to go.

Modern biology is focused more on understanding behavior, like violence and crime, through research on indicators and influences. Rather than attempting to determine a single root cause, researchers are discovering markers of predisposition and identifying factors of risk. In a recent interview about his new book, The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime, criminologist and professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Adrian Raine asserts that there is a “biology of violence” that should not be ignored; “Just as there’s a biological basis for schizophrenia and anxiety disorders and depression… there’s a biological basis also to recidivistic violent offending” (Gross, 2013).

It was not a topic that was brought up earlier, because there was tainted history of using biology to figure logistics of criminal behavior. Instead, criminologists look at social and environmental factors such as poverty rates, drug/weapon accessibility, and socialization. Over 100 studies have shown genes play a role in crime. Kevin Beaver, an associate professor at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice states approximately 50 percent of a human’s aggressive behavior is comprised of the thousands of expressed genes affected by the environment (Cohen). The other half of a human’s aggressive behavior is usually environmental or social factors such as, neighborhood, wealth, and education. It is important to also know the other factors that “make” someone a criminal because it will also help researcher see what else contributes to criminal activity (Eysenck).

No one can be certain whether nature or nurture is the cause for criminal behavior. However, research has stated that it is more often an interaction between genes and the environment that predicts criminal behavior (Jones, 2005). Through a biological perspective, it is determined that criminal behavior is due to genetics and/or neurological conducts. It concludes that criminals are born due to their criminal traits being passed down through genetic or chromosomal mutation. Another explanation of criminal behavior within the biological perspective are the neurochemicals within our brains and body. There many regulated chemicals in the brain that determines thought process, perception and action. Like the arguments for genetic and chromosomal mutation, any abnormal anomalies or chemical imbalance can heavily impact behavior (Schram, 2018). This goes for any damages to some parts of the brain that controls emotions, reason and logic. Problems with the biological perspective are the following: 1. It provide little explanations for a small of minority of offenders with specific conditions (Levitt, 2013). 2. Disregard the effect of environmental influences and life experiences that also impact behavior. 3. Since criminality is based on biology, it is unchangeable, therefore, no one is to be blamed for their actions. Lastly, 4. Famous studies on biological factors of criminality (ex: the twin, family and adoption studies) maintained an intertwined relationship with social

The objective of this study is to examine whether it is nature or nurture who plays the most vital role in a human’s behavior, specifically an individual’s criminal behavior. Criminal behavior is defined as an act or failure to act in a way that violates public law. Some believe that criminal behavior can be identified as early as conception, meaning that criminal behavior is because of your genes. While others believe that one’s upbringing and social learning environment directly contributes to the individual’s criminal behavior. This paper will provide the history on the ongoing debate of nature vs. nurture and answer the question of whether it is

The biological theories are essential to the criminal justice profession so that they won't assume that a person's genetic characteristics cause a person to commit a crime. However, there are born criminals and “these types of criminals are the most dangerous, and can be identified through his or her stigmata or identifying characteristics” (Akers, Sellers, See, & Kieser, 2013, p. 10). Biological theories are the bases for severe criminal behavior mostly found among people who are born with an innate impulse to commit a

The principles of the biological theories allow us the understanding that all biological theories should evaluate common factors that relate to each other from one biological theory to the other (Schmalleger, 2012). The first parts of the biological theory assess the importance for the theories to make a connection between criminal behavior and the human brain and a person’s personality and the studies of neurology and neurochemistry. This meaning that a person’s ability to control antisocial behavior stems from their environment and the and family genes gives the person directly into right and wrong. There is also a standard that should evaluate the connection between different groups such a sex and racial makeup that that of criminal behavior as well as human instinctive behavior (Dretske, 2014). The link between the evolutionary development of a person criminal behavior or ability to

However, while the overstimulation of the Id and the failure to acquire and develop the the Ego and SuperEgo leads to criminal tendencies, while aggression may be out of adaptive values, and while genetic studies have pointed towards the influence of genes and criminal behaviour, these theories alone are insufficient to account for crime. Evolutionary theory does not explain or predict for the extreme degrees of aggression in individuals nor has the genetic theory proven for 100% heritability; which raises the need for us to examine the Nurture camp of crime theories as well.

One researcher studied a theory relating to sociopaths and their antisocial behavior. This specific study proposed a theory that a primary sociopath is lacking in moral development and does not feel socially responsible for their actions. This type of sociopath is a product of the individual's personality, physiotype, and genotype, which supports the theory that a person’s genotype is the significant factor in the development of criminality. There is a secondary sociopath that develops in response to his or her environment because of how and where they were raised. Living in an urban residence, having a low socioeconomic status, or poor social skills can lead an individual to being unsuccessful in reaching their needs in a socially desirable way, which can turn into antisocial or criminal behavior. This supports the theory that the environment is the significant factor in the development of criminality. With these studies, it shows that both the genetic make-up of an individual as well as the environment play an important role with what kind of person they are going to be as an adult.

There has always been a fascination with trying to determine what causes an individual to become a criminal? Of course a large part of that fascination has to do with the want to reduce crime, and to determine if there is a way to detect and prevent individuals from committing crime. Determining what causes criminality is still not perfectly clear and likewise, there is still debate as to whether crime is caused biologically, environmentally, or socially. Furthermore, the debate is directly correlated to the notion of 'nurture vs nature'. Over time many researchers have presented various theories pertaining to what causes criminal behavior. There are many theories that either support or oppose the concept of crime being biological rather

Behavioral neuroscience or biological psychology employs the principles of brain pathology to the study of human behavior through genetic, physiological, and developmental operations, as well as, the brain’s capacity to change with experience. Since the second world war, crime was largely attributed to mostly economic, political, and social factors, along with what psychologists termed at the time, the “weak character” of mental disturbance, and brain biology was rarely considered. However, new advances in neuroscience and technology have allowed a number of studies that link brain development, impairment, and injury to criminal violence. This emerging field of psychology explores the brain at a microscopic level, focusing studies on the roles that the brain’s neurons, circuitry, neurotransmitters, and basic biological processes play in defining and molding all human behavior.

Is behavior learned? It is inborn? What of aggression, intelligence, and madness? There is a crucial relationship between the behavior of humans toward their own kind and the view of life they hold. Interest in behavioral genetics depends on wanting to know why people differ. According to Jack R. Vale, in Genes, Environment, and Behavior, recognition of the importance of hereditary influence on behavior represents one of the most dramatic changes in the social and behavioral sciences during the past two decades. A shift began toward the more balanced contemporary view that recognizes genetic as well as environmental influences on behavior. Behavioral genetics lies in its theory and methods, which consider both genetic and

The nature versus nurture debate is an ongoing debate among social scientists relating to whether ones personality/personal characteristics are the result of his/her inherited genetic traits or the result of environmental factors such as upbringing, social status, financial stability, and more. One of the topics that are discussed among psychologists is the study of violent behavior among people as a whole, and in particular, individuals. Social scientists try to explain why people commit acts of violence through explanation of either side of the nature or nurture schools of thought. However, the overwhelming amount of research done into the relation of violent behavior and the nature versus nurture debate indicated that nurture is the primary explanation to explaining violent behavior because violent traits are learned from adults, someone’s social upbringing is a major factor to why some people are more violent than others, and finally influences from news media, movies, and video games enhance the chance for someone to exhibit violent behavior. In conclusion, violent behavior is a complex issue without a clear explanation that is overwhelmingly supported by the nurture side of the debate.

20). This illustrates that not only is persons' genetics contributing to criminal behaviour 'but' also the environment in which the they are socialised can initiate deviancy.