The Phineas Gage case brought the link between brain damage and personality change into the spotlight, and neurocriminology studies the influence of the brain and genetics on criminal behavior. The field recognizes that a balanced approach to biological and environmental factors is important in predicting and preventing crime.
On September 13, 1848, a large boulder was being blasted out of the Green Mountains in Vermont, USA. Phineas Gage, the foreman of the crew, was tasked with placing gunpowder in a hole in the rock, and the procedure was to pour sand into the loaded hole, light the fuse, and retreat to safety. Unfortunately, on that day, the sand was not poured into the hole and the gunpowder ignited. Phineas wasn’t paying attention at the moment, and with a loud “bang!” an iron rod went through his head. Amazingly, he survived, and his life was saved by the efforts of Dr. Hall. The incident caught the doctors’ attention, not only because Phineas survived, but also because his personality changed 180 degrees after the accident. Usually jovial and gentle, Phineas began to show moody and violent tendencies after the accident. The brain injury caused the personality change. This was seen as an example of the possible link between the biological factors of the brain and the psychological factors of personality.
The discipline that deals with these studies is neuroscience. Neuroscience explores the various changes that occur after brain injury, and neurocriminology is a field that studies the connection between brain injury and crime. In this article, we’ll focus on neurocriminology.
The field of neurocriminology began with Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso, who argued that certain criminals have distinct physical characteristics that can be used to identify them. He also argued that criminality is inherited, and that people who are genetically predisposed to criminality are born with certain physical characteristics. However, his arguments were not based on clear statistical data, and he was criticized for linking eugenics and fascist ideas, which eventually led to his demise.
Neurocriminology deals with these sensitive and controversial topics, but unlike Lombroso’s time, current research discusses the possibility that the cause of crime may lie in the brain and genes, rather than in an individual’s physical appearance – that is, the difference between those who commit crimes and those who don’t stems from brain structure. According to Professor Adrian Lane, author of Anatomy of Violence, an in-depth study of the field, it’s been underestimated that the causes of crime are more biological than environmental.
In fact, studies have shown that many criminals have certain genetic variations, such as palmar morphology or certain genes that indicate less evolved traits. For example, the Monoamine Oxidase A (MAOA) gene variant is often found in the families of criminals. A lack of this enzyme can lead to poor production of neurotransmitters that affect aggression, which can promote antisocial behavior. In addition, people with damage to the frontal lobe often have difficulty controlling their impulses. The part of the brain damaged in Phineas Gage’s accident was also the frontal lobe. A study analyzing the brains of 41 murderers found that they had significantly lower activity in the prefrontal cortex. These various biological factors, especially the link between brain damage and crime, are certainly worth considering. However, some social scientists place more weight on environmental factors, such as a criminal’s upbringing and home environment, than on biological factors.
Most people recognize that environmental factors play a large role in crime, and it’s true that they do. However, there are cases where this is not the case. For example, there’s the case of Jeffrey Landrigan, who was adopted from a stable family and received a good education, but continued to commit crimes. He made headlines when he met Darren Hill, a criminal who looked exactly like him in prison, and it was revealed that he was his biological father.
So, should we put more emphasis on environmental or biological factors? Up until now, most of society has assumed that environmental factors cause crime. In fact, many of the psychopaths and serial killers we encounter come from disadvantaged backgrounds and have experienced traumatic events in their childhood. Biological factors have also often been dismissed because acknowledging them as a primary cause of crime would imply that criminals are born with them, which raises human rights concerns.
However, a growing body of research suggests that biological factors should be given more attention. With the rise of violent crimes in modern society, it has become important to prevent crimes rather than react to them, and identifying the causes of crime has become a key issue. Since environmental factors have limited effect on prevention, biological factors must also be considered. This is not to say that we should scan everyone’s brain and isolate those who are more likely to commit crimes, but to open up the possibility of introducing brain tests to prevent crime. In his book, Professor Adrian Lane argues that crime prediction algorithms that include both genetic and environmental factors will be able to predict criminality with a probability of over 70% by 2030.
We shouldn’t just look at this as a human rights issue anymore. There is enough research and evidence already accumulated, and logical research is underway to support it. Of course, just because a biological factor increases the likelihood of criminality doesn’t mean that a person will commit a crime. For example, there are studies that show that a lack of monoamines leads to antisocial behavior, but there are also people who have antisocial tendencies without having this trait, and others who are overcome by environmental factors. However, this is precisely what makes it important to consider in crime prediction and prevention. For those with high biological factors, we should leave a lot of room for improvement through environmental factors.
One of the reasons social scientists are against predicting crime based on biological factors is the concern that environmental factors may be neglected. If crime prediction relies solely on biological factors, important environmental factors such as racism and domestic violence may be marginalized. However, despite these concerns, a balanced crime prediction algorithm that takes into account both biological and environmental factors would allow for a more systematic response. Rather than looking at a criminal’s brain structure alone, it should be analyzed in conjunction with environmental factors and used for prediction. If a crime prediction algorithm that balances environmental and biological factors is introduced in the real world, it is expected to have a preventive effect.
The brain and crime are two different but deeply related concepts. We need to systematically investigate the relationship between these two concepts and use them to prevent crime in real life. Although there are human rights issues and the limitation of not being able to predict 100%, neurocriminology has the potential to create a safer society by strengthening the connection between crime and the brain. If someone around you has a brain that predisposes them to criminality, it would be better to take preventative environmental measures rather than overlook it. The important thing is not to rely on this prediction entirely. Humans are as unpredictable as they are predictable. Ultimately, it’s important for society to create an environment that makes it difficult for crime to occur, and hopefully this will lead to a better society.
