In this blog post, we take an in-depth look at whether predicting and preventing crime based on neurocriminology and genetics is justified from a human rights and ethical perspective.
If it were possible to predict and analyze the crimes a person will commit from the moment they are born, what would you do? Is it right to believe that a being whose value and personality have not yet been determined, existing only as an incomplete cell that cannot even be called human, will grow up to be a criminal because their genes indicate that they have the potential to be one? And if the answer to the previous question is “yes,” is it justified to consider them potential criminals and isolate or, if necessary, restrain and control them? These are the arguments and questions raised by neurocriminology, which claims that it is not human free will but hormones and the brain that cause crime, and the problems that arise from this. Regarding the crime prediction system mentioned earlier, some neurocriminologists and brain scientists believe that we should not unconditionally label crime prediction systems as “heinous acts that do not respect human rights” or “another crime.” Instead, as in the movie Minority Report, we should actively use the system to solve larger problems by applying it to some people who are born criminals. I agree with this neurological and biological approach to crime. If some humans are likely to become violent criminals and destroy something more important than the human rights of that individual, I believe it is possible to focus on that person and view them as a “potential criminal.”
Neurocriminology assumes that “genes and the brain create crime.” The main argument of neurocriminology is that depending on the genetic makeup and brain structure determined at birth, a person may or may not be born a criminal. An example of this is frontal lobe dysfunction. When the frontal lobe of the brain does not function properly due to excessive stress or bleeding, it becomes difficult to control anger, and the person is more likely to commit violent crimes such as violence and murder because they cannot control their impulses. This frontal lobe dysfunction supports the claim of neurocriminology. The article cited in the footnote above states, “The frontal lobe of the brain is the part that suppresses emotions and controls impulsive behavior. However, when the frontal lobe is damaged or dysfunctional, emotions become uncontrolled and impulsive behavior occurs.” In other words, the prefrontal lobe of the brain determines whether a person will commit a crime or not. How is this different from saying that the brain commits crimes? This argument and the issue of prefrontal lobe dysfunction can also be used to counter the argument that “the environment creates criminals.” For example, the argument that “a person who has grown up in an unhappy and unloved environment is unable to behave normally and rationally. Therefore, it is not simply the brain but the environment in which a person grows up that is an important factor in causing crime” can be countered by saying that “people who have lived in such a family environment have an increased likelihood of committing crimes because the interaction between the limbic system, which causes emotions in the brain, and the frontal lobe, which regulates those emotions, is blocked.” The environment can create criminals, but ultimately, criminals created in this way also have problems in their brains.
It is not only the structure of the brain that is the problem. In addition to the structure of the brain, hormones and genetic makeup have also been identified as factors that cause crime. Studies on this topic include simple comparisons of the genes and hormones of ordinary people and criminals, as well as studies of criminals to determine whether genes identified as causes of evil behavior actually exist. Particularly impressive was a study conducted in 1993 on a Dutch “family.” Dr. An Bruner, affiliated with a Dutch hospital, conducted genetic testing on 14 criminals who had committed violent crimes such as arson and attempted rape, and found that all 14 had problems with a specific chromosome. All 14 individuals had a strange genetic defect that prevented them from producing monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), which makes people feel happy, satisfied, and loving. Of course, the author concludes by saying that even such genetic defects can be overcome by environmental influences. Children who grow up with kind and loving parents can actually hide these genetic tendencies, and children who are abused and raised by nervous parents grow up to be similar to their parents, even if they are born with good and gentle genes. However, the above article and arguments regarding environmental factors in crime do not deny the existence of “crime genes,” but rather say that the environment can suppress and inhibit the expression of bad genes.
In addition to factors such as brain structure and genes, it is also known that excessive secretion of testosterone, a male hormone that activates violence and activity, plays a role in making humans violent and violent. Since testosterone is secreted from the testicles produced by the Y chromosome in men, chemical and physical castration is considered one factor in preventing recidivism among criminals. In fact, experiments on male rats showed that when male rats were castrated at a young age to prevent the secretion of testosterone, they did not exhibit the violence typically seen in male rats when they reached adulthood. However, when the same rats were injected with testosterone, they became as aggressive as normal male rats. The link between the male hormone testosterone and violence is also discussed by Richard Wrangham in his book “The Red Monkey Problem.” Observations of primates, which are not as different from humans as rats, show that male gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees also frequently commit crimes such as rape, assault, and murder. assault, and murder, and argues that this is most likely to occur when humans, especially males, are deprived of highly developed systems of order such as culture, society, law, and morality, leaving only biological aspects. What is unusual is that even in these primate societies, only males exhibit such behavior. Females cooperate and do not show authoritarian behavior toward each other, but only males are involved in such criminal acts. Of course, it is nonsense to put apes and humans on the same level, and although it has not been completely proven, empirical results show that criminals and those who engage in antisocial behavior have higher testosterone levels than the general population.
Thus, the brain, genes, and hormones provide quite convincing evidence for the claims that crime, violence, and innate criminality are linked to genetics. In addition, there are frequent reports of experimental results showing that abnormal brain waves and neurotransmitter deficiencies are related to neurocriminology, and this topic is currently the subject of considerable interest and controversy. Along with the controversy surrounding neurocriminology, there are other major issues that are emerging. The first is that if neurocriminology is indeed correct, criminals could commit crimes and shamelessly claim, “I was born this way,” and get leniency or reduced sentences. Second, if neurocriminology is proven, there is also the issue of human rights violations that would arise if criminals were treated as criminals and placed under supervision solely because of their innate genes and brains by a crime prediction system. Can we really condemn a person for crimes they have not yet committed, and when it is not even certain that they will commit those crimes? I believe that if it is necessary to do so in order to ensure the welfare and happiness of the majority of society, then it is right to do so.
There are clearly cases where people are born with poor brain structure or genetics, either acquired or congenital. There are also cases where excessive hormone secretion inevitably leads to a violent and impulsive personality. The three factors introduced above argue that “there are biological and neurological causes for crime, whether innate or not.” This cannot be denied. And if, based on this analysis, it is determined that an individual will become a criminal and create innocent victims, then it is also undeniable that the crime must be prevented. However, this does not mean that they can be punished and detained for crimes they have not committed, as depicted in the movie Minority Report. So how can we prevent crime and create a better society without violating human rights? I propose the following method. It is to utilize the environmental changes mentioned in the factors above. Crime, frontal lobe dysfunction, and genetic factors When explaining the above, I said that “environmental factors can silence or activate genetic factors.” Although this may involve issues such as human rights violations and invasion of privacy, instead of unconditionally arresting and isolating people, it would be better to use the above environmental factors to suppress the genes that cause crime. In Paradoxical Criminology, author Lee Chang-moo argues that biological and genetic factors are important in crime, but that family environment and parental education are essential for preventing such crimes. He mentions that “some scholars believe that whether a person becomes a criminal or not is determined before the age of ten,” and says that the role of parents, who are the first people a person sees and experiences after birth, is extremely important. He argues that even if a person is born into a violent environment, if they are well educated and loved as a child, they will be “coded” to overcome such limitations. This “coding” occurs the younger the child is, and it becomes more difficult to change as the brain and way of thinking become established with age. Therefore, when a child is born, as in the movie “Gattaca,” if a specific “crime gene” is found after genetic testing, or if there are problems with the structure of the brain or skull, or if blood hormone levels are abnormal, the child should be taught and raised in a positive manner from an early age so that the coding becomes easier and more accurate. Rather than treating them as criminals and preventing “crime” from a neurological perspective, this approach uses that perspective and knowledge to prevent “criminals” from being created in the first place.
Some people are born good, and some are born bad. However, no one knows what their final destination will be. In the above “paradoxical criminology,” the author compares this to “plaster dough.” The initial start may be beautiful, but depending on how the dough is kneaded before the plaster dries, the shape may become ugly. On the other hand, even if the start is poor, it can be reborn into a beautiful shape in the same context. I believe that tests using neurocriminology and genetics should be used only to determine whether the start is beautiful or not. At the same time, I believe that research should also be conducted on how to handle the dough so that no one throws it away because the start is poor.
