The Biology of Crime

Biological theories that are used in determining criminal behavior concentrate on influences of chromosomal abnormalities and biochemical irregularities (Wrightsman, et al, 2002). In addition, physical characteristics, like the shape of one's head, or their body type, may determine who may become a criminal. There are also theories that consider mental capacity, as those with lower IQ's have a higher rate of crime than those of average or exceptional intellect (McDaniel, 2006). The theory of crime involving genetics is a hot topic in scientific and criminology circles. To say that genetics has something to do with criminal activity in an individual can begin to lean toward prejudice toward race, mentality, and physical appearance.

There is no definitive way of proving that genetics has any influence on the propensity of a person becoming a criminal. From Dr. Franz Gall's theories involving phrenology (studying the shape of a skull to determine personality) to Dr. Kohlberg's stages of development, studies on the psychological and genetic causes for criminal behavior have been considered (Keel, 2005). Most professionals, both psychologists and psychiatrists cannot agree with all the theories of genetic causes for crime. The theories that involve social interaction prove more explainable, and more sensible than to blame genetics for criminal behavior.

When considering twins, both monozygotic (identical) and dizygotic (fraternal) twins, there seems to be a greater correlation between criminal behavior in identical twins than in fraternal twins of either same-gender or opposite-gender members (Wrightsman, 2002). Although each group of monozygotic twins did show more chance of both twins behaving in a criminal manner, it is not taken into account that identical twins are usually treated more alike than fraternal twins. Identical twins are fed the same, dressed the same, many times their personal environment is shared, and all those around them tend to treat them as though they are a single entity more than two unique individuals. Fraternal twins, because they do not look the same, are not typically treated as a single person, but as two people with two different personalities. In addition, the twin studies do not even show the same statistics, or even similar statistics between each psychologist who conducted the study. Where Johannes Lange (1929) did his study he found 77% of identical twins versus 12% of fraternal twins had both twins engaging in criminal behavior, whereas Kranz (1936) found that there was less of a difference rate between identical and same gender fraternal twins, at 66% and 54% respectively, with only opposite-gender fraternal twins showing a larger difference, of 14% (Wrightsman, et al, 2002). The difference between same-gender and opposite-gender fraternal twins could also be determined to be societal and environmental, as females and males are treated differently from birth. It also does not show in the findings whether the same-gender fraternal twins were male, female, or a random sample of both.

Adoption theories show that there is not a great deal of difference in criminal biological parents and criminal adoptive parents in the criminal potential for an adopted child. If an adoptive parent is criminal, the child could become criminal, and that is not genetic at all. Mednick, Gabrielli, and Hutchings (1984) provide a chart in which they did not use consistent numbers in order to compile their data. Using 143 adopted children, they found that if the adoptive and biological parents were both criminal, 24.5% of children grew to engage in criminal behavior. That is 35 children of 143. When the biological parent was criminal but the adoptive parent was not, the total number of children analyzed was 1226, with a 20% rate of criminal behavior, showing 245 children engaging in criminal behavior. If 143 children had been studied under the latter, the number of children engaging in criminal behavior under these statistics would have been nearly 29 children, only 6 fewer than if both adoptive and biological parents were criminal (Wrightsman, et al, 2002). Using these same results, if 1226 children were studied whose parents were criminal but the adoptive parents were not, 300 children would grow to be criminals using the same statistic, a difference of 55 children. It really did not make a very big difference whether the biological or the adoptive parents were criminal. With skewed results, the proof cannot be completely positive.

In biological studies toward criminality those who have the potential to be criminal but are not raised in a negative, un-nurturing environment do not all become criminals. All mesomorphic people do not grow up to be high school bullies, nor do they grow up to be criminals. All those with less intellect do not grow up to be criminals. If these studies are to be taken seriously, then those who are serial killers, those who commit the most heinous of crimes would fall into these same categories, when in fact more intelligent criminals have the best opportunity to become serial killers. In addition there are many serial killers who do not fit into the mesomorph body type but instead are more obese, or endomorphic, in body type.

I do not believe the genetic theories of criminal behavior are well studied, nor well proven. The statistics are skewed by not using same numbers of individuals for each part of the study's compilation. Did the psychologists who conducted the studies also consider those who were not adopted who lived in non criminal homes and how many of them grew to be criminals as well? The studies have to show control groups which possibly could negate their findings. Because a psychologist is trying to prove their theory, their data could be leaning toward those factors which would prove their ideas to be true.

The Good Samaritan laws that have been written in all the states of the union have conditions that must be met in order to protect the health care professional or volunteer who is attempting to render aid. The act must be voluntary, the person being helped must not refuse the care being offered and the assistance must be provided in good faith to honestly desire to help the victim (Medi-Smart, 2006). This act is more in the assistance of someone who has been injured, is choking, or otherwise incapacitated. If someone were to be hit by a car while crossing the street, it would be legally responsible for someone to pull the person from the street if the victim asked for help, and then make them comfortable, making sure, if they are bleeding, to stop the bleeding, talk to the victim, and call an ambulance. If the person hit by the car were then found to have spinal injuries that were compromised by moving him off the street, the individual who helped him would not be in danger of lawsuit because he was asked to help by the person hit by the car and was helping in good conscience.

The duty to assist law is also state written, does not exist in all 50 states, and is to require that if someone, no matter who they are, is witness to a crime, they have a legal obligation to assist in the rescue of the individual involved as a victim of a crime (Lyons, 1998). In addition, knowledge of an impending crime can be chargeable in this law. If someone is aware that a crime is about to be committed and they do nothing to stop the crime, either by stopping the one who will commit the crime, or reporting their knowledge to proper authorities, they are also in violation of this law (Wrightsman, 2002). This law would be utilized in a situation where a woman is being attacked, screams that she is in danger, and there are passers-by just looking at the crime as it is happening, and not lifting a finger to assist. The task of calling for police is enough to keep the spectator from being prosecuted for violation of this law, because there are also personal safety considerations to be met. If the criminal involved has a knife or gun, the spectator's well-being would also be in jeopardy, like the original victim.

Psychologists who choose to concentrate their skills as expert witness in legal or civil cases have the responsibility of making sure that they are knowledgeable of the case at hand and provide pertinent and understandable information for the jury to assimilate into their ultimate deliberations of the question at hand. An expert psychological witness can provide important clues as to how the defendant in a case was thinking, their behavior patterns, and other personality traits and background which could have caused the criminal behavior. In a case involving a distraught family member who takes the life of a loved one as in a mercy killing, the family member on trial has in fact broken the law, but there are extenuating circumstances which could provide a jury with important facts which will help them to come to an equitable conviction and sentence for punishment.

Ethical considerations in being an expert witness are vast. It is important to be as matter of fact as possible, do not interject opinions that are not backed up by the psychological community. The testimony that is provided by a professional in a field is taken at face value, and not argued by laymen who do not understand the field. If the expert witness does not provide valid testimony, then the verdict and subsequent sentencing could be skewed by the opinion or prejudice of the professional who has testified. There is a great deal of trust placed in those with greater education, and the one who is providing the information should feel responsible for giving the best knowledge he has to the jury so they can make the best informed decision possible.

References
Keel, R. (2005). Biological and Psychological Theories of Deviance, Biological Positivism, retrieved on January 13, 2007 from http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/200/biotheor.html (genetic theory).
Lyons, D. (1998). National Conference of State Legislatures, State Legislatures Magazine, March 1999, retrieved on January 13, 2007 from http://www.ncsl.org/programs/pubs/399HELP.HTM.
McDaniel, M. (2006). Estimating state IQ: Measurement challenges and preliminary correlates, ScienceDirect, Intelligence 34 (2006) 607-619, retrieved on January 13, 2007 from http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/McDaniel%20(2006)%20Estimating%20state%20IQ.pdf.
Medi-Smart (2006). Nursing Education Resources, Nursing Legal Issues, University of Cincinnati, retrieved on January 13, 2007 from http://medi-smart.com/gslaw.htm.
Wrightsman, L., Greene, E., Nietzel, M., Fortune, W. (2002) Psychology and the legal system, Fifth Edition, Wadsworth, Belmont, Ca.