Biological determinism is the theory that genetic, neurological, or physiological factors solely determine human behavior, including criminal tendencies.
Understanding Biological Determinism
Biological determinism is the idea that biological factors—such as genetics, brain structure, and biochemical processes—are the primary causes of human behavior. In criminology, this theory suggests that individuals are predisposed to criminal activity due to inherent biological traits rather than environmental or social influences. While biological determinism has influenced many criminological theories over time, modern research rejects the idea that biology alone dictates behavior. Instead, contemporary criminology views criminal behavior as a result of complex interactions between biological predispositions and environmental factors.
The concept of biological determinism has been highly controversial, particularly because of its historical misuse in justifying discrimination and social inequality. Early theories based on biological determinism attempted to classify criminals by physical traits, intelligence levels, or hereditary factors. While modern biological research has provided valuable insights into the role of genetics and neurobiology in behavior, it does not support the notion that criminality is purely biologically determined. Instead, the interplay between nature and nurture remains central to understanding crime.
The Origins of Biological Determinism
The roots of biological determinism can be traced back to the 19th century when early criminologists and scientists sought to explain criminal behavior through physical characteristics and heredity. One of the most well-known figures in this field was Cesare Lombroso, an Italian physician and criminologist who, in the late 1800s, argued that criminals were “born” rather than “made.”
Lombroso’s theory of the “born criminal” suggested that certain individuals were biologically predisposed to crime due to evolutionary atavism—meaning they were throwbacks to a more primitive stage of human evolution. According to Lombroso, criminals could be identified by physical features such as large jaws, asymmetrical faces, and long arms. He believed that these traits indicated an inherent criminal nature, making certain individuals incapable of moral behavior. While Lombroso’s work was influential in the early development of criminology, his methods lacked scientific rigor, and his conclusions were later discredited.
Following Lombroso, early 20th-century researchers continued to explore biological explanations for criminal behavior. The eugenics movement, which gained prominence in the early 1900s, was rooted in biological determinism and sought to control crime by preventing individuals deemed “genetically inferior” from reproducing. Eugenics policies led to forced sterilizations and discriminatory laws, particularly in the United States and Europe. These practices were later condemned for their ethical violations and flawed scientific assumptions.
Genetics and the Search for a “Crime Gene”
With advancements in genetic research, scientists have attempted to identify hereditary factors that may contribute to criminal behavior. Twin and adoption studies have provided some evidence that genetics play a role in criminality, but findings do not support a purely deterministic view.
Twin studies compare identical twins (who share 100% of their genes) with fraternal twins (who share about 50%) to determine whether genetic similarities influence criminal behavior. Some studies have found that identical twins are more likely to display similar criminal tendencies than fraternal twins, suggesting a genetic component. However, these studies also highlight the importance of shared environmental influences, as twins often grow up in similar conditions.
Adoption studies further explore the role of heredity by examining children raised apart from their biological parents. Some research, such as Sarnoff Mednick’s studies in the 1970s, found that adopted children with biological parents who had criminal records were more likely to engage in criminal activity, even when raised in non-criminal adoptive families. While this suggests a genetic influence, the findings also indicate that environmental factors still play a significant role.
More recently, researchers have investigated specific genes that may contribute to aggressive or antisocial behavior. One widely studied genetic factor is the MAOA gene, often referred to as the “warrior gene.” Some studies suggest that individuals with a low-functioning variant of this gene may have an increased risk of impulsive aggression, particularly if they experience childhood abuse or neglect. However, the presence of this gene alone does not determine criminal behavior. Instead, it interacts with environmental factors, reinforcing the idea that biology is only one piece of the puzzle.
The Role of the Brain and Neurobiology
Neuroscientific research has provided insights into how brain structure and function influence behavior, including tendencies toward aggression and impulsivity. However, findings in this field challenge the deterministic perspective by emphasizing the brain’s plasticity—its ability to change and adapt based on experiences.
One key area of interest is the prefrontal cortex, which plays a role in impulse control, decision-making, and emotional regulation. Studies using brain imaging technology have shown that individuals with damage or underdevelopment in the prefrontal cortex are more likely to exhibit impulsive and antisocial behavior. This has been observed in violent offenders and individuals diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.
Another important brain region is the amygdala, which processes emotions such as fear and aggression. Research has found that individuals with a smaller or less active amygdala may struggle with emotional regulation, increasing the likelihood of aggressive behavior. However, brain structure alone does not determine criminality—environmental experiences, trauma, and learned behaviors also shape brain function.
Neurochemical imbalances, particularly in neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine, have also been linked to aggression and impulsivity. Low serotonin levels are associated with poor impulse control, while high dopamine levels may contribute to sensation-seeking behavior. Hormones such as testosterone and cortisol also influence aggression, but their effects vary depending on environmental and psychological factors.
The Interaction of Biology and Environment
Modern criminology rejects strict biological determinism in favor of a biosocial approach, which recognizes that biological factors interact with environmental influences. While certain biological traits may predispose individuals to aggression or impulsivity, they do not determine behavior in isolation. Instead, environmental factors such as childhood experiences, socialization, and economic conditions play a crucial role in shaping criminal tendencies.
For example, individuals with genetic predispositions for impulsivity may never engage in criminal behavior if raised in a supportive and structured environment. Conversely, those with no biological risk factors may still become criminals if exposed to severe social disadvantages, abuse, or peer pressure. This diathesis-stress model suggests that biological vulnerabilities only manifest under certain environmental conditions, highlighting the importance of both nature and nurture in understanding crime.
Criticisms of Biological Determinism
Biological determinism has faced significant criticism for its oversimplified view of human behavior. Critics argue that it ignores the complex social, psychological, and cultural factors that influence crime. Additionally, historical applications of biological determinism, such as eugenics and racial profiling, have demonstrated the dangers of using biological explanations to justify discrimination and inequality.
Another major issue is that biological research often relies on correlation rather than causation. While studies may show a relationship between certain genetic or neurological traits and criminal behavior, this does not mean that these traits cause crime. Many individuals with similar biological characteristics never engage in criminal activity, reinforcing the need for a more nuanced approach.
Conclusion
Biological determinism presents an outdated and overly simplistic view of criminal behavior. While genetics, brain function, and biochemical processes can influence aggression, impulsivity, and risk-taking, they do not dictate criminality. Modern criminology recognizes that crime is best understood through an interaction of biological predispositions and environmental influences. By adopting a biosocial perspective, researchers can develop more effective prevention and rehabilitation strategies that address both biological and social risk factors, moving beyond the flawed assumptions of biological determinism.
[ Glossary ]
Last Modified: 02/22/2025