In this blog post, we will look at whether neuroscience can be a new key to crime prevention or a dangerous attempt to threaten human rights and ethics.
In the movie Minority Report, three prophets predict future criminals through majority-based predictions and arrest them. The movie’s theme of stopping potential criminals in the future constantly raises the moral dilemma of “Can the party responsible for a crime that has not yet occurred be held accountable?” This question is further maximized as the subject of the prophecy is identified as the movie’s protagonist. In the 2050s, when technology has advanced to an extreme degree, crimes are predicted by majority rule according to the prophecies of the prophets, and the fatalistic contradiction that one’s life is determined by the prophecies of three people seems like a cinematic fiction, but something similar is happening in reality. The emergence of neurocriminology.
Criminology is the study of the causes and processes of crime and how to prevent it. This discipline is studied from various perspectives, including psychology, society, law, and police administration. Among them, neurocriminology is a field that studies the relationship between human genetic expression and crime. Neuroscientists argue that the fundamental motivation for crime stems from abnormal brain development, either congenital or acquired, and from evolutionary selection. The goal is to build a database by analyzing the brain development and physical characteristics of criminals and use it to prevent future crimes. Furthermore, they want to create a crime-free world by eliminating genetic traits related to crime.
The origins of neurocriminology can be traced back to Cesare Lombroso, an Italian psychologist and prison doctor in the 19th century. He argued that the shape of a human skull is related to crime, and believed that the brain structure and physical characteristics of criminals indicate a propensity for crime. Rombruso dissected the brains of murderers and found abnormal characteristics in the cerebellum, and based on this discovery, he concluded that similar neurological clues to brains that are less evolved could indicate potential criminals. This research was further developed by Canadian criminologist James Hilborn, who later coined the term “neurocriminology.”
When one encounters such a theory, neurocriminology may seem like an innovative and scientific solution that can eradicate crime in the future. However, such expectations are unrealistic, and the results of neurocriminology research have many limitations because the human brain is very sensitive to the external environment. The study of neurocriminology is typified by palmistry and brain comparison, and there is insufficient scientific evidence to classify people as potential criminals using these methods. For example, the shape of the palm or a specific pattern of the brain simply indicates personality or characteristics, but it does not have a direct link to crime. In addition, judgments that overlook physical characteristics that are greatly influenced by the external environment or acquired brain damage are bound to be inaccurate.
The biggest problem with neurocriminology is that it is highly likely to infringe on human rights. Defining people with physical and genetic characteristics similar to criminals as potential criminals and continuously monitoring their lives can lead to invasion of privacy. It is very dangerous that even people who are not likely to commit crimes can be branded as criminals without clear evidence that these characteristics are necessarily related to crime. It is also difficult to clearly establish the criteria for classifying a person as a potential criminal. Without clear criteria for what percentage of similarity to a criminal is required and what should be prioritized when multiple factors are involved, neurocriminology is difficult to apply. Furthermore, the act of removing fetuses with genes associated with crime in advance can raise ethical controversies. This approach risks violating human dignity and will be difficult to accept socially.
In addition, applying neurocriminology requires securing personnel for management and observation. For example, if a large number of people are classified as potential criminals based on the shape of their palms or certain physical characteristics, it may be very inefficient in practice to devote personnel and resources to monitoring them. It would be much more effective to invest in current police forces and crime prevention facilities.
One of the most important factors in the occurrence of crime is social factors. Neurocriminology focuses only on genetic and physical characteristics, making it difficult to prevent crime caused by social factors. Crime is often caused by the environment in which an individual is placed, which is greatly influenced by social factors, regardless of genetic characteristics. As Michael S. Gazzaniga, author of Who’s In Charge? points out, even the most antisocial psychopaths are unlikely to commit crimes in front of police officers. This shows that crime is not simply a genetic factor, but occurs through free will in a social context. Therefore, it would be much more effective to strengthen social security and create an atmosphere that discourages crime than to indiscriminately invest resources in finding potential criminals.
Of course, neurocriminology has contributed greatly to the analysis of the causes of crime. By studying the correlation between the neurological characteristics of criminals and crime, it has helped us understand the behavior of violent criminals and contributed to identifying the characteristics of people with antisocial tendencies. However, the proposition that physical genes cause crime is not a sufficient or necessary condition for causing crime. Neurocriminology is merely a tool for analyzing the causes of specific crimes after they have occurred, and it has limitations in preventing crime.
We should also be wary of the possibility of neurocriminology being abused. There is a risk that a person who has committed a crime due to a genetic defect will use that defect as a defense, reducing their sentence or even replacing punishment with psychiatric treatment. In this case, there is also a possibility that a criminal with a genetic defect will continue to commit crimes. Therefore, neurocriminology should focus more on rehabilitating and reintegrating criminals than on preventing crime.
Ultimately, humans are born with different genetic characteristics, and their behavior is largely influenced by free will and the environment. Neurocriminology should focus on analyzing the causes of crime based on human free will and social control. Crime prevention should be carried out in a way that strengthens human free will and social responsibility, and neurocriminology should play a supporting role in that process.
