In this blog post, we will consider how we should respond if criminal potential can be predicted through criminal genes and cranial nerve tests.
How would you feel if you were told that you would commit murder in the future through a brain nerve test, even though you were living an ordinary life like everyone else? Many people would be shocked and would argue that they would never do that. In fact, most people believe that criminals are influenced by social environmental factors. In other words, it is believed that an individual’s personality is formed by acquired factors. However, in the 1900s, researchers of cranial nerves began to conduct in-depth research and discussions on the claim that the genes of criminals actually exist. Adrian Raine’s The Anatomy of Violence argues that criminals are formed by innate factors rather than acquired factors, and that there is indeed a “criminal gene.”
So, even if there are crime genes and a test can be used to find out who has them, how can society respond if the person has not yet committed any crimes? Also, will the person actually commit a crime in the future? It is very difficult to give a definite answer to these two questions. Another question is, even if there are people who are more likely to be criminals by nature, aren’t the chances of committing a crime determined much more by acquired factors? I would answer this question with “yes.”
My first piece of evidence that criminals are much more influenced by acquired factors is the intentional homicide rate by country. In the case of Korea and Japan, the number is relatively low at 2.9 and 0.5 per 100,000 people, respectively, but in the case of Mexico, the number is 18.1 per 100,000 people, which is unrivaled compared to other countries. From this, there is no reason to believe that Mexicans have 10 times more criminal genes than Koreans or Japanese. Therefore, it can be said that the culture and social atmosphere within the country had a greater impact on crime than innate reasons such as genes. Of course, some may argue that genes are passed down from ancestors, so people in the same country usually share the same ancestors. However, if the high murder rate in a particular country is due to innate factors, then the rape rate, which is another crime, should also be examined.
Unlike the murder rate, the rape rate in Mexico is lower than in other countries. In the case of Australia and Sweden, the number of rape reports received per 100,000 people is 91.9 and 58.6, respectively, while in Mexico it is 13.3, which is relatively low. If Mexicans have a criminal gene and crime is innate, they should show a high crime rate regardless of the type of crime, but the actual data says otherwise.
The second reason is that there may be people who commit crimes without having a criminal gene, and conversely, there may be many people who do not commit crimes even though they have a criminal gene. Of course, the criminal gene has not yet been precisely identified, and no one has analyzed who has such a gene, but this claim can be easily proven. Genes are passed on from parents to children, so if the parents are criminals, the children are more likely to be criminals as well. However, in reality, it is rare for a child to become a criminal because their parents are criminals, and not all parents of criminals are criminals. For example, the parents of Russian mafia boss Semion Mogilevich were not criminals. This indirectly shows that criminals are more influenced by acquired factors than congenital causes.
The third reason is that genes can be modified by changes in the acquired social environment. This is a very strong argument, meaning that even if there is a congenital criminal gene, it can be modified through acquired changes. In the past, it was thought that genes were passed down from generation to generation and that gene modification was not common unless it was a special case such as a mutation. However, recent studies have confirmed that acquired genetic changes can occur, with “epigenetics” attracting a great deal of attention among genetic researchers. According to studies, although changes in the DNA itself are rare, changes in the sequence or binding degree of histones and other proteins that surround the genome can alter a person’s personality and appearance.
More specifically, identical twins can be used to verify this. Identical twins have completely identical genetic traits at birth, but as they grow up, their faces and personalities change depending on their respective environments. In a real-life example, one twin followed a traditional Japanese lifestyle, while the other moved to the United States and grew up living an industrialized American lifestyle. As a result, the twin who lived in Japan lived a long life, while the twin who lived in the United States suffered from diabetes and hyperlipidemia and died early. There are also cases where one of identical twins is a criminal, while the other is successful. Changes in genetic traits due to acquired factors are attracting a great deal of attention in the field of research called “epigenetics.”
Therefore, genes related to crime may also be present in people from birth, but this can be sufficiently changed by acquired factors, and it can be said that acquired factors have a greater influence on the occurrence of crime.
The key point I want to make in this article is that criminals are determined by acquired factors rather than innate genes. The three reasons above also explain that acquired social and environmental factors have a greater influence than innate genes. However, this is not just an attempt to emphasize the greater role of acquired factors. Through this article, I would like to present a solution to how society should respond to such technology if science and technology advance to the point where it is possible to predict future crime rates through the analysis of human brains.
