Genetic determinism in criminology is the theory that genetic factors primarily shape an individual’s likelihood of engaging in criminal behavior, often minimizing environmental influences.
Understanding Genetic Determinism in Criminology
Genetic determinism suggests that an individual’s genetic makeup plays a dominant role in determining their behavior, including criminal tendencies. In criminology, this concept implies that some individuals may be biologically predisposed to crime due to inherited traits such as impulsivity, aggression, or a lack of empathy.
This perspective contrasts with theories that emphasize environmental factors, such as upbringing, socioeconomic status, or peer influences. While genetic determinism does not claim that crime is entirely predetermined, it suggests that biological factors significantly increase the likelihood of criminal behavior, often downplaying external influences.
The Science Behind Genetic Determinism
1. Genes and Criminal Behavior
Modern genetic research explores how certain genes may be linked to behaviors associated with crime. Studies in behavioral genetics examine how traits like aggression, impulsivity, and risk-taking—common factors in criminal behavior—may have genetic components.
One of the most studied genetic factors in criminology is the MAOA gene, sometimes called the “warrior gene.” This gene affects the breakdown of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine, which influence mood and aggression. Some studies suggest that individuals with a low-activity MAOA variant may be more prone to violent behavior, especially when exposed to childhood trauma.
However, the presence of a particular gene does not guarantee criminal behavior. Instead, genetic predispositions interact with environmental factors, meaning that while some individuals may have a higher risk, their environment still plays a crucial role in shaping their actions.
2. Twin and Adoption Studies
To assess genetic influences on criminal behavior, researchers often study twins and adopted children:
- Twin Studies: By comparing identical twins (who share 100% of their genes) with fraternal twins (who share about 50%), researchers analyze whether genetic similarities correlate with criminal behavior. Studies show that identical twins tend to have higher concordance rates for criminal activity, suggesting a genetic component.
- Adoption Studies: These studies examine children adopted away from their biological parents. If adopted children exhibit criminal behavior similar to their biological parents rather than their adoptive ones, it suggests a genetic influence. Many adoption studies have found that children of criminal biological parents have a higher risk of criminality, even when raised in non-criminal households.
3. Neuroscience and Criminal Behavior
Advancements in brain imaging have revealed structural and functional differences in the brains of individuals with antisocial behavior. Some studies suggest that abnormalities in the prefrontal cortex (which regulates impulse control and decision-making) and the amygdala (which processes emotions like fear and aggression) may contribute to criminal behavior. These findings align with genetic determinism, as they suggest that biological differences influence behavior.
Criticism and Ethical Concerns
While genetic determinism provides insights into biological influences on crime, it is a controversial and often criticized perspective.
1. Oversimplification of Criminal Behavior
Critics argue that genetic determinism oversimplifies crime by focusing too much on biological factors while ignoring social, economic, and psychological influences. Most criminologists recognize that crime results from a complex interaction of genetics, environment, and personal choices.
2. Ignoring Environmental Influences
Even if genetics play a role in criminal behavior, environmental factors such as childhood experiences, education, and community conditions significantly shape outcomes. Studies show that individuals with genetic risk factors for aggression or impulsivity do not always engage in crime—especially if raised in supportive, stable environments.
3. Ethical and Legal Implications
If criminal behavior were purely genetic, it could raise troubling ethical and legal questions:
- Moral Responsibility: If crime is biologically determined, can individuals be held fully accountable for their actions?
- Discrimination and Stigmatization: Labeling individuals as genetically predisposed to crime could lead to discrimination, eugenics-based policies, or preemptive legal action against certain groups.
- Genetic Testing for Criminality: Some fear that genetic screening for “criminal traits” could be misused in policing or sentencing.
4. Historical Misuse of Genetic Theories
The idea that crime has a biological basis has a long and troubling history, particularly in the context of eugenics movements and discriminatory policies. Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many scientists, politicians, and legal theorists embraced the belief that criminality was inherited. This belief led to policies that sought to control or eliminate individuals deemed “genetically unfit,” including those with criminal records, mental illnesses, or perceived behavioral abnormalities. These applications of genetic determinism, now widely regarded as unethical and scientifically flawed, had devastating consequences for many communities.
Eugenics and the Criminal Justice System
Eugenics, a movement aimed at improving the genetic quality of human populations, gained popularity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Inspired by the work of figures such as Sir Francis Galton, who coined the term “eugenics,” advocates of this movement believed that crime, poverty, and other social problems were largely the result of hereditary traits. They argued that if society could identify and control the reproduction of “inferior” individuals, it could reduce crime rates and improve overall societal well-being.
In the United States, these ideas influenced the development of laws that targeted those labeled as “degenerates,” including criminals, people with disabilities, and individuals with mental illnesses. Many of these laws were based on studies that falsely claimed to find a direct link between heredity and criminal behavior. The most infamous of these was the Buck v. Bell (1927) Supreme Court decision, in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. upheld a Virginia law permitting the forced sterilization of individuals deemed “unfit to reproduce.” The ruling legitimized sterilization programs across the country, leading to the forced sterilization of tens of thousands of individuals, including some who had been institutionalized or convicted of crimes.
Lombroso and the “Born Criminal” Theory
One of the earliest and most influential figures to promote biological determinism in criminology was Cesare Lombroso, an Italian criminologist in the 19th century. Lombroso’s “born criminal” theory suggested that some individuals were biologically predisposed to crime due to inherited physical and psychological traits. He claimed that criminals could be identified by anatomical features such as asymmetrical skulls, large jaws, and long arms—traits he believed were signs of evolutionary “regression” to a more primitive human state.
Lombroso’s theories had a lasting impact on early criminal justice policies, as they suggested that criminals were fundamentally different from law-abiding citizens and could be identified simply by their physical appearance. His ideas contributed to racial and class-based discrimination, as certain ethnic groups and lower socioeconomic classes were more frequently labeled as “genetically prone” to criminality. Though his theories have been widely discredited, they laid the foundation for later misuses of genetic determinism in crime prevention and law enforcement.
Nazi Germany and the Racialization of Crime
Perhaps the most extreme and horrifying application of genetic determinism in criminal justice occurred in Nazi Germany. The Nazi regime, under Adolf Hitler, took eugenic theories to their most brutal conclusions, implementing policies that aimed to purify the Aryan race by eliminating those deemed genetically inferior. Criminals, along with Jewish people, Romani populations, people with disabilities, and other marginalized groups, were forcibly sterilized, institutionalized, or executed.
The Nazis passed the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring in 1933, which mandated the sterilization of individuals with conditions considered hereditary, including “criminal insanity” and “moral feebleness.” Later, these ideas justified the mass extermination of millions during the Holocaust, as the regime sought to create a so-called “racially pure” society. The Nazis’ use of genetic determinism to justify their crimes against humanity remains one of the most egregious examples of how pseudoscientific ideas about heredity and crime can be manipulated for oppressive and genocidal purposes.
The Decline of Eugenics and the Rejection of Genetic Determinism
By the mid-20th century, advances in genetics and criminology debunked many of the flawed assumptions behind genetic determinism. Studies showed that crime was not the product of simple genetic inheritance but was influenced by a complex interplay of biological, environmental, and social factors. The horrors of the Holocaust and the forced sterilization programs in the United States and other countries led to widespread condemnation of eugenics, and most sterilization laws were repealed by the late 20th century.
Additionally, the rise of modern biosocial criminology shifted the focus away from purely genetic explanations of crime. Instead, researchers began to examine how both biological predispositions and environmental influences shape criminal behavior. This perspective acknowledges that while genetics may contribute to behavioral tendencies, factors such as childhood experiences, education, and social conditions play a far greater role in determining whether an individual engages in crime.
Genetic Determinism vs. Biosocial Criminology
Most modern criminologists reject strict genetic determinism in favor of biosocial criminology, which considers both biological and environmental influences. This perspective acknowledges that genetic traits may increase risk factors for crime but emphasizes that environmental conditions determine whether those traits manifest in criminal behavior.
For example:
- A person with a genetic predisposition to aggression might never engage in violent crime if raised in a nurturing environment.
- Conversely, a person with no genetic risk factors might still become a criminal due to extreme poverty, abuse, or peer pressure.
Conclusion
Genetic determinism in criminology suggests that genetic factors significantly influence criminal behavior, but it remains a debated and controversial theory. While research shows some genetic links to traits associated with crime, most experts agree that environmental factors play an equally, if not more, important role. Ethical concerns, historical misuse, and the oversimplification of crime make strict genetic determinism problematic. Instead, modern criminology embraces a biosocial approach that considers both biology and environment in understanding criminal behavior.
[ Glossary ]
Last Modified: 02/27/2025