It is not Lombroso's Biology Anymore: Are you sure?

• In Event: Discussion and Implications of Biosocial and Psychological Research

Abstract

Are contemporary biocriminological theories epistemologically sound and what are their policy implications? Biocriminological theory should identify specific factors causing crimes and how specific social settings may intervene between biology and crime. Predisposing biological factors are insufficient to cause criminal behavior and sociological factors alone may not account for criminal acts. A useful model may be very complex with multiple independent and intervening variables and their interactions. Contemporary research on genetic and biological factors examines ADHD, IQ, neurotransmitters, enzymes, states of arousal, minimal brain dysfunction, etc. Yet such research may suffer from the same problems of years past of Lombroso and Eysenck, including unjustified extrapolation, ecological fallacies, and biased sampling which combined with researcher bias and the political nature of crime and punishment can have serious unintended consequences. Do the facts presented by Loeber, Raines, Fishbein, Delisi, and Beaver support the story? How much correlation rather than causation is being "explained", and will their research support the policies suggested by "Superpredator" William Bennett, or a kinder and gentler Carceral Society where the philosophy is treatment and prevention through a medical model, which has been rejected when applied to administration of justice in America as unworkable, inequitable, and punitive.

Authors

• James A. Nolan, Norfolk State University

• Lloyd Klein, Hostos Community College

• Bernadette J. Holmes, Norfolk State University

• Michael Fischer, Norfolk State University