This article discusses the legitimacy and human rights issues of crime prediction systems based on neurocriminology’s claim that human genes and brain structure can determine criminal tendencies. The author supports the neurocriminological approach and suggests using environmental factors to prevent crime.
What would you do if you could predict and analyze the crimes a human being will commit before he or she is born? Is the theory correct that from the imperfect cellular stage, when a person is barely even a human being, the possibility of becoming a criminal is imprinted in their genes and they grow up to be a criminal, with no set values or personality? And if the answer to the first question is yes, is it justifiable to treat them as potential criminals and manage them by isolating them or restraining them if necessary? These are the claims, questions, and issues raised by the study of neurocriminology, which argues that hormones and the brain, not free will, create crime. Some neurocriminologists and brain scientists actually believe that crime prediction systems should not be unconditionally dismissed as “heinous acts of disrespect for human rights” or “just another crime,” but should be actively used to solve the larger problem by applying them to some people who are born criminals, as in the movie Minority Report. I agree with the neurological and biological approach to these crimes. If some humans have the potential to become violent criminals and destroy something bigger and more important than the human rights of a single person, then I think we can focus on that person and see them as a ‘potential criminal’.
Neurocriminology is premised on the idea that ‘genes and brains make criminals’. The main argument of neurocriminology is that a person may or may not be born a criminal, depending on the arrangement of genes and the structure of the brain, which are determined from birth, for example, frontal lobe dysfunction. When the frontal lobe of the brain becomes dysfunctional due to excessive stress or blood loss, it leads to impaired anger control and an inability to control impulses, which increases the likelihood of committing violent crimes such as violence and murder. This frontal lobe dysfunction can support the claims of neurocriminology, which states in the footnote above that the frontal lobe is the part of the brain that controls emotions and impulsive behavior. However, when this lobe is dysfunctional or impaired, emotions become uncontrolled and impulsive behavior becomes uncontrollable.” In other words, the frontal lobe of the brain determines whether a person will stop a crime or commit a crime. This argument, and the issue of frontal lobe dysfunction, can also be countered by the “environment makes the criminal” argument. For example, to the argument that “people who grow up poor and unloved are unable to behave normally and rationally, so their upbringing, not simply their brains, is a significant factor in criminality,” we might counter that “humans who have lived in such a home environment block the interaction between the limbic system, which generates emotions in the brain, and the frontal lobe, which regulates those emotions, increasing the likelihood of criminality. So while the environment may make the criminal, the criminal is ultimately the brain.
It’s not just the structure of the brain. In addition to brain structure, hormones and gene sequences have also been implicated in criminal behavior. Some studies have simply compared the genes and hormones of normal people and criminals, while others have tested criminals to see if the genes blamed for bad behavior really exist. One particularly impressive study was conducted in 1993 on a Dutch “family” of criminals. Dr. Ann Brunner of a Dutch hospital conducted genetic testing on a Dutch family of 14 criminals who had committed violent crimes, such as arson and attempted rape, and came up with the surprising result that all 14 had a problem with a particular chromosome. All 14 had a strange problem with their genes that prevented them from making the enzyme monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), which is responsible for making people feel happy, content, and in love. Of course, the footnote above concludes with the assertion that even such genetic problems can be “corrected by environmental influences. Children raised by kind and loving parents can actually mask these genetic tendencies, and children raised by abusive and neurotic parents can grow up to be similarly disposed to their parents, even if they are born with good and soft genes. However, the above article and other arguments about environmental factors in crime are not denying the existence of such “criminal genes,” but rather that the environment can inhibit and suppress the expression of bad genes.
In addition to factors such as brain structure and genes, excessive secretion of testosterone, a male hormone that activates violence and aggression, is also believed to play a role in human violence and aggression. As testosterone is secreted by the testes, which are produced by the male Y chromosome, chemical or physical castration has been considered as a factor in preventing criminal recidivism, and in fact, experiments on male rats have shown that if male rats are castrated while they are still young to prevent them from secreting testosterone, they do not show the violence that is typical of male rats as adults, but if the same rats are injected with testosterone, they show the same aggression as typical male rats. The link between testosterone and violence is also discussed by Richard Langham in his book The Devilish Male. He explains that male gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees, who are quite distant from humans, are also prone to criminal behavior such as rape, assault, and murder, and argues that this is what happens when you take away the rational outputs of human beings, especially men, and leave them to their biology alone, without the highly developed ordering systems of culture, society, law, and morality. What’s unusual is that even in these ape societies, only males exhibit this behavior. Females cooperate and don’t show authority over each other, but only males are involved in these crimes. Of course, it’s ridiculous to think of apes and humans in the same way, and nothing is completely proven, but empirical results show that criminals and antisocial people definitely have higher levels of testosterone in their blood than the average person.
While the brain, genes, and hormones have been linked to criminality, violence, and criminals being born criminals, there have been numerous reports of experimental findings linking abnormal brain waves and neurotransmitter deficits to neurocriminology, and the topic is currently garnering considerable attention and controversy. Along with this controversy, there is a big question that has emerged. The first is that if neurocriminology is indeed correct, criminals may commit crimes and shamelessly claim ‘I was born this way’ to get mitigating circumstances or a chance for a leniency, and the second is that if neurocriminology is proven, there is also the issue of human rights violations that occur when criminals are treated as criminals and managed by criminal prediction systems solely because they have bad genes and a bad brain. To the question, can we sell a human being for a crime they have not yet committed, and without knowing for sure whether they will or will not commit a crime? I believe that it is right to do so if it is necessary and can ensure the good and happiness of the majority and society.
There are certainly cases where people are born with poor brain structure and genes, either acquired or congenital. There are certainly cases of people who are born with a bad brain structure and genes, and who inevitably grow up to be violent and impulsive. What the three factors above argue is that there is a biological and neurological cause for crime, whether we are born with it or not. This cannot be denied. And if this analysis predicts that an individual will become a criminal and create innocent victims, then it is also undeniable that they should be stopped. But that doesn’t mean we can punish and imprison them for crimes they didn’t commit, like in the movie Minority Report. So, how can we prevent crime and create a better society without these human rights violations? Here are my suggestions Use the environmental changes mentioned in the factors above. In explaining genetic factors and frontal lobe dysfunction, it was said that “environmental factors can either silence or activate genetic factors”. Although this may be accompanied by problems such as violation of human rights and invasion of privacy, it would be better to use the above environmental factors to silence the genes that cause criminality, rather than locking them up and keeping them in isolation. In Paradox Criminology, author Changmoo Lee argues that while biological and genetic factors are important, family environment and parental education are essential for preventing such crimes. “Some scholars believe that a person’s decision to become a criminal is made before the age of 10,” he says, noting that the role of parents, the first people a child sees and experiences, is incredibly important. He argues that even if a child is born violent, if they are well educated and loved as a child, they are “coded” to overcome those limitations. This ‘coding’ is faster the younger you are, and harder to change once the brain and mindset are established in later life. Therefore, if a child’s genes are tested when he or she is born and certain “criminal genes” are found, or if there are problems with the structure of the brain or skull, or abnormal levels of hormones in the blood, as in the movie “Gattaca,” it is important to teach and raise the child in a positive way early on to make the coding easier and more correct. It’s not about applying a neurological perspective to prevent “crime” by treating them as criminals, it’s about using that perspective and knowledge to prevent “criminals”.
Some humans are born good, some are born bad. But no one knows where they will end up. In the above quote from Paradox Criminology, the author compares it to “plaster dough”. It may start out beautiful, but before the plaster dries, it can turn out ugly depending on who kneads it and how. On the other hand, it can start out ugly, but in the same vein, it can be remolded into something beautiful. I think that neurocriminology and genetics should be used to determine whether or not the beginning is beautiful. At the same time, I think there should be research on how to handle the dough so that someone doesn’t throw away the dough because of a bad start.
