1. Biology and Crime zEarly Positivism: the legacy of the early 1900s zSociological Criticism and Dominance zNew Directions in Biological research yBiosocial Interactions

2. Early Biological Positivism zLombroso’s “born criminal” yDarwinistic theory of “atavism” zVarious theories of the “feeble-minded” zCharles Goring, E.A. Hooten ybody stature and weight zThe XYY supermale zCommonality? 1 immutable factor directly causes crime

3. Biology from 1940-1980s zAny hint of “biological research” was ridiculed, ignored, treated as “taboo.” yAkers: this criticism was warranted yThe use of “knowledge destruction?” z1990s-present: rebirth of biological research yIs modern biological research or theory any better?

4. Is Crime “inherited?” zTwin Studies yChristianson (1977) y“Concordance” rates: MZ (36%), DZ (12%) yCriticism of twin studies? zAdoption studies y“cross fostering” analyses ycriminal history of biological parents vs. adoptive parents

5. Cross Fostering Analysis Mednick et al. (1984)

6. Assuming that something is inherited... z“Intelligence” z“Physiological Arousal” yHow our body processes stimuli ycortical arousal, CNS measures (heart rate, etc.) zPersonality/Temperament yADD, ADHD

7. A “Biosocial” emphasis zNo modern theory relies solely on biology yInteraction of biology and social factors zExample: Mednick’s biosocial theory yA mix of “socialization” (parenting, SES…) and biology (arousal)

8. Mednick’s biosocial theory zChildren refrain from crime when consistently socialized to do so (similar to?) yParental efficacy (consistent rewards/punishment) and social context of parenting yChildren have different “learning ability” xSome do not feel the “sting” of punishment xLow cortical arousal, low nesting heart rate, etc. zPotent mix = poor parenting and low arousal

9. POLICY IMPLICATIONS zEarly Positivism yEugenics (quotes from Hooten, others) zBiosocial Criminology yBiology may identify “high risk” kids yPrevention can target “social” factors