Genetics and Criminal Behavior
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-06-23/genetics-and-criminal-behavior
Forensic researchers are taking another look at controversial claims about the role of genetics in criminal behavior. We discuss the ethical and policy implications.
Guests
John Paul Wright
Professor of Criminal Justice, The University of Cincinnati
Arthur Caplan
Professor of Bioethics and Philosophy, University of Pennsylvania
John Laub
Director, National Institute of Justice (NIJ) at U.S. Department of Justice; Joint recipient of Stockholm Prize in Criminology (2011)
Benson George Cooke
President, Association of Black Psychologists
John Butler
leader of the applied genetics group at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Personally I love science. Science is one of the few endeavors in life that is said to base it's assertions on proven testable results. The problem is people are involved with science, Francis Collins head of the Human Genome Project is a true believer and thus pollutes the water with leaps of faith. As with anything on the political or scientific spectrum this diminishes the potential of many of the discoveries uncovered by science. Conclusion, if there is anything uncovered here that that rocks the boat of contemporary perceived conceptions on race, gender or sexual orientation it will be dismissed as irrelevant.
This study is kind of like watching a bunch of people drown while testing the water to see if there are any diseases that may be harmful to those drowning. In other words, what a waste of time, money and energy. A much better indicator to determine if someone will be a criminal and/or antisocial is to test to see whether the individual lives in poverty, is raised in a single parent household by a parent with little or no education in an environment with little or no opportunity for a decent American education or employment. How about a show on the science of poverty and why it's necessary in a capitalistic society? What you call antisocial and criminal, those impoverished call survival. If you don't beleive me, go check out the public school system in Obama's back yard, Chicago. By third grade, these students are shut down emtionally (anti-social). Those that are not, become targets.
All this study will do is allow defense lawyers to develop a reasonable doubt for those clients who can afford them.
I find some of the underlying assumptions about pre-disposition towards crimes vey disturbing. Crime is defined socially. Different societies have different criminal laws. Laws have changed significantly over history; must faster than human evolution. Using terms like 'aggression' or 'anti-social behavior' are NOT the same as criminal behavior and blur and confuse these dicussions instead of clarify them.
For exmple: just a few decades ago, homosexual behavior was a serious criminal offence. Today it is not. It is foolhearty to contend that "yes, we have had many unjust criminal laws in the past, but finally, in 2011, we got it all right and we can separate criminals from 'normal' people."
At age 3, a close friend's daughter went to sleep a typical toddler and woke up the next day a completely different child.
From then on, the daughter created serious problems for herself at home and at school. Her [well-educated, upper middle class] parents used every resource made known to them to try to help her but nothing worked. She was murdered in her early 20s. Her diary revealed a life of irresponsible sex and drug use that she would promise to herself to change, but then she'd fall back into it. If was as if she couldn't get out.
Later, in an unrelated family history project, my friend discovered that every other generation on her mother's side had a murderer in it.
Is it impossible that some genetic trait played a role in the daughter's bad choices?
Cherry picking isolated scientific conclusions is no way to approach social science. In North Carolina the legislature is wrestling with forced sterilization that occurred as late as 1973. This nation suffers under the influence of a wealthy elite minority of eugenicists who believe they can cleanse racist science and institutional horrors enabling them to treat poorer human beings like chickens in a packing plant. They do this to justify their out-sized wealth and power and to control their multitudes of victims. This is victim blaming writ large and it borders on scapegoating by race. It crops up again and again as fascists and racists fight for control, as with "The Culture of Poverty." Watch out, next they'll be blaming the Arab Spring on a crime gene. This show is about an upsurge in classism and institutionalized racism at a time of depression and increasing scarcity. . I can see why Diane left the rubber gloves for Katty. This was a job for Mike Rowe, worse than selling Ford Mustangs.
.
Well, it's always comforting to separate criminals from "normal people"---it makes us feel that we have nothing in common with them, won't have to worry about joining their ranks, and because we are no kin of theirs, don't have to worry about the rightfulness of our punishing them and its extent.
And I think what the veteran was asking was, "Will this test for people who will kill when ordered to do by governments?," which activity in fact constitutes the majority of the murder that goes on in the world. I think it a rhetorical question, as history proves that nearly _everyone_ will do so, so he was saying that this matter is irrelevant to most of the murder in the world.
More generally, I see us simultaneously finding out more and more that whatever free will we might have is not necessarily the dominating factor in what happens to us and studiously ignoring the fact because we don't have a dependable way of organising society---including incentives that have impact on our decisions, freely made or genetically mandated or in-between---without the fig leaf of "free choice" (see: "natural law", "divine right of kings", "racial destiny" for other spooks-in-the-head that societies need).
There is a disturbing racial element to this discussion. I know a white man who has a PhD now and is a solid citizen but when he was young he was a "self-described hell raiser." He was arrested 10 times, but his university professor father got him off in each instance and he never had a police record. I also know of an all-white male secret society in my college of 20 toughs who beat people up and destroyed property but then went on to graduate and live middle-class lives. People like this would probably never get into the study because they started out with delinquent behavior, however, with support groups and second chances grew out of it. Many black youths don't have those opportunities.
This conversation instantly reminds me of 1994's "The Bell Curve" by Charles Murray and Dr. Richard Hernstein which presented the argument that IQ is largely inherited. The book also concluded that people with lower IQs would be significantly more likely to commit crime. Murray and Hernstein also showed that African-Americans persistent lag behind other ethnic groups in intelligence testing.
To me, as an African-American, the over-emphasis on genetics is a slippery slope. It also seems that African Americans always come out to be the boogeymen as a result of these types of research. But the fact is, there are just too many environmental factors to definitively assign a genetic cause to specific human behavioral patterns.
-Dris from Dallas
I agree with many of the comments below. Depending on what is defined as criminal behavior, and what social environmental influences are, different genetic tendencies would bring out completely different results.
In a right handed world, a genetically left handed person could be said to be predisposed to accidents. In a left handed world, I would expect to see right handed's to be culled as the accident prone.
In a capitalist world, aggressive antisocial behavior is rewarded when applied from within the "right" circles.
First, the major reason why there's a disproportionate percentage of blacks in prison is simple: A racist judiciary.
But, I also wanted to point out that this is, I believe, the first economic downturn in which the crime rate (with the exception of the criminals on Wall Street) has not only not gone up but actually gone down. I've heard one theory that involves toxics in our communities. We've pretty much eliminated lead in our environment. Can the panelists discuss the connexion between lead and other heavy metals and toxics in our environment and anti-social behavior?
Ta.
It seems that most of the discussion is concerned with violent crime. What about nonviolent criminality? A good friend of mine grew hk in the worst of environments and later was incarcerated (twice) for white collar offences. He has since gone straight and become hugely successful. Unfortunately, he had to break ties with all of his family to be able to do that.
The human genome can be understood as a library of books with instructions that govern how we are molecularly constructed and how the components interact. Hence, it is important to know what genes we possess. But not all books we identify in this library are actually read, that is not all genes are expressed. Some may not be expressed at all, others perhaps at times when they cannot exert their greatest impact. Which genes are expressed and to what degree depends heavily on our life experiences. Undoubtedly, genetics plays a role in crimes involving developmental mental disorders. But even in such cases the multitude and complexity of gene interactions may limit the considerations. Ultimately we shall be judged by our actions.
Read more here:
http://brainmindinst.blogspot.com/2010/07/neurolaw-mind.html
As much as genetics may present one with a disposition to crime, there are other factors that contribute toward development of a critical tipping point leading to commission of crimes. Social and economic factors, especially socialization plays a major part.
Therefore, it is these other factors that need to be looked into as to ways of eliminating them or reducing their influence in commission of crime.
If we look into Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the failure to have one's lower needs met may lead to crime in some people yet not in all. One's being predisposed to crime and the other not having that predisposition may play a role here, yet working on having one's base needs met will avert the tipping point.
Fred Kakete
I can't help, but to think that perhaps given our racial history here in the US if perhaps we shouldn't even try to conduct this sort of research here. What has research in racially homogeneous societies found? I seem to recall a fairly recent commentary in the New York Times from a Scandinavian (?) man about research into a violence gene that prisoners were found to be 3x as likely to have as the general population. The author, a peaceful, law abiding citizen, shared this genetic variant.
While I pretty much agree with the premise of this show, I have to wonder: does this negate the idea of free will? And if so, what are the implications to the religious community? It seems to me, that religious adherents (particularly christians) would have a hard time swalloing this.
Thank you,
Jesse in San Francisco
Criminologists also found that white men were more likely to be serial killers. *sigh* Not helpful...
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/serial.htm (Prof. Robert Gordon)
A major factor is WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF CRIME, and WHO defines it.
Crime is a LEGAL CONSTRUCT, sometimes defining one minority culture's characteristics as criminal by the dominant culture.
American Indians were called savage by a culture/nation aggressively and violently dispossessing them of their lands, their culture and their lives. WHO's the criminal here?
Leaders of our banking industry just pulled off the biggest heist in history, and have not been held accountable. Aside from the moral crime, legally these guys are partly protected by a legal structure created by the banking industry itself, and by their partners in the government.
Our whole political economic structure rewards sociopathic behavior, which is often considered model behavior, not criminal.
One could say our edifice of so called democratic capitalism is itself a
CORPORATE STATE OPERATED CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE, as defined by its victims.
The context of the discussion is itself dangerous. Crime is a social construct. Genetics may identify those who tend to lead, but it is the socially acceptable context of that leadership that gets labeled. In a poor area providing for yourself or others as is accepted by your immediate social situation is rewarded just as it is in a wealthy area: with internal feelings of well-being reinforced by those around you. It's an evolutionary trait for survival if anything. Successful leaders are promoted and those less successful are demoted. To nail it down as criminal denies social reality.
A major factor is WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF CRIME, and WHO defines it.
Crime is a LEGAL CONSTRUCT, sometimes defining one minority culture's characteristics as criminal by the dominant culture.
American Indians were called savage by a culture/nation aggressively and violently dispossessing them of their lands, their culture and their lives. WHO's the criminal here?
Leaders of our banking industry just pulled off the biggest heist in history, and have not been held accountable. Aside from the moral crime, legally these guys are partly protected by a legal structure created by the banking industry itself, and by their partners in the government.
Our whole political economic structure rewards sociopathic behavior, which is often considered model behavior, not criminal.
One could say our edifice of so called democratic capitalism is itself a
CORPORATE STATE OPERATED CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE, as defined by its victims.
I can't help but take note that the panelists (and even the host herself) seemed to dismiss Dr. Cooke's assessment of the necessity of having a diverse academic board conducting/discussing/establishing these studies. The standard of what's "normal" can and will vary depending on who's setting the standard. For instance, in one community, whipping a child on the rump may be considered abusive and character of a tyrant; in another it may be seen as discipline and character of a good parent. I have to agree with many of the comments below that this has racial undertones.
I'd like to know whom these studies are conducted on? Those incarcerated? Well all we have to do is look at the demographics of those behind bars and we can see how easily a study can be skewed to represent minorities, Blacks in particular. We know that minorities are disproportionately sentenced to longer terms more frequently. So what about those who get off with probation/house arrest/community service, etc?
Are they studying the genetic predispostions of those who commit the many crimes that go "under-punished" (white collar, misdemeanors, etc.?)...One other thought, if we consider that many are possibly wrongfully imprisoned (just look at those freed after 15+ years after forensic evidence became available) it could really cast doubt on the conclusions drawn.
I can't help but take note that the panelists (and even the host herself) seemed to dismiss Dr. Cooke's assessment of the necessity of having a diverse academic board conducting/discussing/establishing these studies. The standard of what's "normal" can and will vary depending on who's setting the standard. For instance, in one community, whipping a child on the rump may be considered abusive and character of a tyrant; in another it may be seen as discipline and character of a good parent. I have to agree with many of the comments below that this has racial undertones.
I'd like to know whom these studies are conducted on? Those incarcerated? Well all we have to do is look at the demographics of those behind bars and we can see how easily a study can be skewed to represent minorities, Blacks in particular. We know that minorities are disproportionately sentenced to longer terms more frequently. So what about those who get off with probation/house arrest/community service, etc?
Are they studying the genetic predispostions of those who commit the many crimes that go "under-punished" (white collar, misdemeanors, etc.?)...One other thought, if we consider that many are possibly wrongfully imprisoned (just look at those freed after 15+ years after forensic evidence became available) it could really cast doubt on the conclusions drawn.
@ Steve 7: I completely agree. Great comment.
Just a few thoughts... from a College educated middle class white guy who reads allot about human nature.
Your Black(sorry, didn't get the name) guest is largely correct to worry about what might result from this research. History has shown that facts will be used by people for whatever their personal agenda might be. And human nature is often unkind. Two of the most prevailant traits are blaming others for our own shortcomings, and self interested bias.
This research CAN have some value, but the ultimate lesson learned ought to be that....after 4 million years of successfully populating the earth, the people who exist now on this planet, are built to survive on this planet. If some genetic variations are seen to lower a person's productivity in our society, it is surely a reflection of that society's inability to properly nurture the current population.
Population densities and proper nurishing opportunities offer many challenges and unless we plan on nazi-like culling of the current population stock, we can only use this kind of research information to learn how we may take our neighbor's and community's, welfare with more personal interest for EVERYONE'S viability. A true interest in evil or criminal or rule-breaking behavior, would include making sure that everyone we know and come in contact with are given outreaching opportunities to be included into our societial club, and given a clear path to flourishing within the rules.
Good points, Gerald Fnord
Evil is cultural. That's what Dr. Cooke is saying.
Example 1. Using crack. It's an administrative offense. A crime occurs when drug addicts break & enter my home to steal from me in order to buy it. If the majority of black "criminals" just use crack, it's not criminal behavior. It's a medical condition.
Example 1.a. Joe Kennedy is rumored to have amassed great fortune during Prohibition through illegal alcohol-related commerce.
Example 2. Honor killing. Rape. Murder. All crimes, but in some countries, the justice system turns a blind eye.
Example 3. Slavery. Scarlett O'Hara was never prosecuted.
Some of the discussions above are failing to take into account the whole of what is said in the bio-social criminology literature. Drs. Wright and Laub, both in the interview and their work, deliberately avoid positing a model in which an individual's genetics lead directly to crime. Even the strongest genetic effects are conditioned (for better or worse) by their immediate and distal environment. Further, the "crime as a social construct" argument has little bearing on this body of scholarship. No one would argue that a "crime" itself is anything more than legalism. However, the authors here measure deviant behavior in more objective measures, e.g. impulsivity, low self-control, measurable neuropsychological deficits, etc.
The problem with community criminology macro-level variables like poverty do not in and of themselves do a good job explaining deviance; even in the poorest, most crime-prone neighborhoods a vast majority of people do not deviate from social or legal norms. Bio-social criminology offers a potential explanation for individual-level variation within such neighborhoods.
My mother used to talk to me about how racists used to try to prove that blacks were genetically inferior to whites so that they could justify slavery. I learned in grade school how the Hitler used the same techniques to justify mass extermination of the Jews. In college, Jencks et al raised it again to further divide the nation in the 60s and 70s. I was shocked to hear the same trash/pseudo science on the Diane Rehm show. "They" say it's all different now. They say they have data now. They say they have technology now. I say "Garbage in- Garbage out!" Every generation has tried to cloak this same hateful racism in a scientific cover. They hope we old folks will die out and they can act like this is all something new. But some of us are still kicking, and we will continue to fight against this useless divisive fakery.
my sentiments, exactly!
This topic seems to focus solely upon 'criminals' of a certain type and subjects only these certain types of 'criminals' to genetic testing: street crime and non-white collar crime purportedly committed by 'minorities' in large part. It is curious is that Dr. Taub do not dare focus upon genetically testing the offspring of the vast list of high level stealing/criminality committed by white collar criminals, i.e. Milken, Lay, and Keating, etc. Why? We have all heard the adage, 'more money is stolen at the point of a pen than at the point of a gun.' Here we go trying to pre-determine someone's criminal propensity. If that be the case, do not forget to subject all wealthy criminals and their genetic offspring to your tests. Their sort of crime dooms nations, befalls and makes us all suffer in economic depression while many jump from buildings to escape the what white collar crime has wrought. Don't only test the petty criminal on the street corner. The testing seems rather counter intuitive at any rate in that genes are not attune to man's written law. Ergo, slavery was once very legal in this society with all of it's lynchings, burning of humans, raping of slaves, selling of people. Shall the descendants of slave holders be genetically tested for their propensity to attempt to re-enslave an entire race, perhaps or have their criminal predispositions been brought to bear in some other regard from which we now all suffer? Dr. Taub, if you do not see the racist underpinnings of the testing objectives, I suggest you read a little more, think a litter harder, for I recall a time when the shape or size of one's head was believed to be an indication or lack thereof of intelligence or criminality. This isn't science, it's a mean spirited campaign to justify not only jailing poor people who do not have resources, but to reach to their children while the bottle is still in their mouth. It's eugenics wrapped in a clothe of '21st century science.' Just stop it.