The Evolution Of Biological Theories Of Crime: Neurocriminology In The Criminal Trial

• In Event: Implications of psychological and biological factors for personal and criminal justice outcomes and experiences

Abstract

Until the 20th century, the biological theories of crime were the spotlight of criminological discourse. By the end of World War II, when the population recognised what the Nazis had done in the name of biology, biological theories of crime were determinedly rejected. Subsequently, criminology focused on the sociological rationalisations of criminal behaviour, asserting that larger social conditions might influence individuals' behaviour and enlarge the likelihood of offending. However, in recent times, there is a growing interest in the nexus of biological and environmental causes of criminal behaviour, the ‘biosocial model’, which endeavours to explain how parallel environments have different influences on different individuals, and contrariwise. During the 21st century, innovative technological discoveries in molecular biology, genetics and neuroscience offered a background for the emergence of neurocriminology. Neurocriminology utilises the object of neuroscience, the brain’s study, to interpret antisocial/violent behaviour. Academics argue that this developing sub-discipline will alter how individuals assess crime and blameworthiness. This prediction is grounded on whether neurocriminology can challenge the long-established idea that criminals come to (or not) an ethical decision to transgress. This paper examines the role and the impact of neurocriminology in criminal trials by evaluating how neuroscientific evidence was used in law cases to provide a foundation for comprehending the correlation between brain functioning/structuring and criminal behaviour. In sum, although neurocriminology has an enlightening function in the criminal trial context, such as explaining mitigating elements such as the effect of traumatic brain injury on blameworthiness, there are some areas in the criminal trial where neuroscience has characteristically been ignored, for instance, the age of criminal responsibility. Hence, this paper concludes that neurocriminology, in time, will forge new paths in explaining criminal behaviour; nevertheless, nowadays, human ideology may be overly embedded in sociocultural theories of crime to be dethroned by science.

Author

• Konstantina Romvota, Durham University