Policy Implications of Biosocial Criminology

26

Policy Implications of Biosocial Criminology Crime Prevention and Offender Rehabilitation Michael Rocque Maine Department of Corrections

Brandon C. Welsh Northeastern University

Adrian Raine University of Pennsylvania

Introduction A long-standing concern that many sociological criminologists have had with biological or biosocial theories has centered on the policy implications of this perspective. This is understandable given the history of criminology, which emerged from relatively undeveloped (and biased) biological understandings of behavior.

431

432

PART IV: TRENDS, CURRENT ISSUES, AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The misunderstanding of the role biology plays with respect to crime and other maladaptive behaviors, along with a strong dose of racism, led to policy implications that are considered unethical and morally repugnant by today’s standards. In the late 19th and early 20th century, biological crime prevention emphasized the use of eugenics. For example, physician Charles V. Carrington (1909) wrote: “[n]o single measure for the prevention of crime would be more far-reaching in its deterrent effects, first, and prevention effects, second, than a law which provided for the sterilization of certain classes of criminals. Stop the breed is the whole proposition” (p. 129). Similar sentiments were echoed by crime researchers into the 1940s, when the use of eugenic arguments to justify Nazi atrocities served to turn the tide away from biology and crime prevention (Rafter, 1998, 2008a, 2008b; Vaske, Galyean, & Cullen, 2011). In recent years, a new “biosocial” criminology has emerged that has attempted to understand human behavior as a construct of biological and social influences. Nonetheless, due in large part to the historical legacy of the biological theories and their implications, sociologically oriented criminologists have not warmed to this line of work. However, we agree with Wright et al.’s (2008) assessment that political ideology and “miseducation” have also contributed to the resistance of some criminologists to the biosocial view. Critics continue to speak of biological “determinism” (Rose, 2000). Popular criminological theory texts still discuss the implications of biological theories by beginning with medical treatments and notions that these theories suggest individuals “cannot be rehabilitated” (Akers & Sellers, 2009, p. 67). The policy implications of biosocial criminology remain perhaps the most important hurdle for its proponents. What, for example, can we do with the finding that low IQ is associated with crime? Isn’t IQ a “fixed, immutable” trait? As one of us has argued, however, “[o]ne of the biggest and widely held myths in criminology research is that biology is destiny” (Raine, 2002, p. 71). We know this not to be the case; in fact, research has shown that even IQ—long thought to be fixed after childhood—changes substantially over time (Ramsden et al., 2011). The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the policy implications of a biosocial approach to crime in a more balanced fashion than hitherto. We first discuss the general perspective that biosocial criminology takes toward the origins of criminal behavior. Next, we describe three major strategies of preventing and treating criminal offending from a biosocial perspective. The chapter ends with a discussion and some conclusions.

Overview of Biological Risk Factors The recent emergence of scientifically rigorous work demonstrating the role of biology in behavior has pointed to a number of risk factors that increase the likelihood of criminal/antisocial acts (see Raine, 2002; Rocque, Welsh, & Raine, 2012; Walsh & Beaver, 2009). These risk factors center on three main areas: (1) genetics, (2) hormones, (3) physiology, and (4) cognitive development.

Chapter 26: Policy Implications of Biosocial Criminology

Perhaps the most controversial topic in biosocial criminology is the notion that crime is “inherited.” Biological criminology has its roots in heredity as an explanation for criminality (e.g., Dugdale, 1877). However, this work was not informed by modern understandings of genetics and how genes influence behavior. We know that there is no “gene for crime,” but genetic factors may increase the likelihood that individuals respond differently to environmental risk factors to crime. Evidence from twin studies, adoption studies, and adoptive twin studies all suggest there is something that is inherited that increases the risk of crime (Raine, 2013). Further, more recent work examining specific genetic correlates of crime, referred to as molecular genetic studies (Baker, Bezdjian, & Raine, 2006), has identified specific genes, such as the dopamine transporter gene (DAT1) and the dopamine D2 receptor gene (DRD2) (Beaver et al., 2007; Beaver, DeLisi, Vaughn, & Wright, 2010; Walsh & Beaver, 2009). Other biosocial research has also indicated that particular physiological factors are related to an increased risk of criminal/antisocial behavior. This work has focused on the effect of abnormalities in the autonomic nervous system on behavior (Eysenck, 1964). Research has shown that those with low resting heart rate tend to have higher rates of risk taking and antisocial behavior (Farrington, 1997; Raine, 2002; Raine, Venables, & Mednick, 1997). Low resting heart rate has been hypothesized to be related to crime for a number of reasons, including an indication of “fearlessness” and underarousal (Raine & Portnoy, 2012). Electroencephalogram research, measuring electric activity of the brain, also shows underarousal for those engaged in crime (Hare, 1993; Lorber, 2004; Raine, 1996, 2002). These findings are generally attributed to the idea that people who take risks are often “underaroused” and seek stimulation at higher levels than others. That is, low arousal leads to fearlessness (Raine, 2002) or difficulty learning from negative consequences (Eysenck, 1964). Finally, a wealth of neurological research has extended our knowledge on risk factors for criminal behavior. Due to recent advances in technology, researchers no longer have to guess at which areas of the brain are responsible for different functions. Thus, the age-old criticisms of phrenology—a favorite of biosocial critics— are no longer relevant. This work has shown that prefrontal and temporal lobe deficits characterize those who are most violent and have psychopathic tendencies (Raine, 2002). In an early study using PET technology to examine prefrontal cortex functioning for 22 serious offenders, Raine, Stanley, Lottenberg, Abel, & Stoddard (1994) compared violent offenders who pled not guilty by reason of insanity (NGBI) to a community comparison group (N 22), matched on the basis of age and sex. They found significant differences across the two groups with respect to lateral and medial prefrontal cortex functioning, with the violent individuals demonstrating lower glucose levels in these regions (see also Raine, Buchsbaum, & Lacasse, 1997). Since this earlier work, a large number of studies using imaging technology have been carried out to examine brain abnormalities associated with violence. Yang and Raine (2009) meta-analyzed the results of 43 studies that used functional and structural imaging technology to examine antisocial and psychopathic individuals. Their findings indicated that brain impairment, generally

433

434


localized to the right orbitofrontal cortex, right anterior cingulate cortex, and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, differentiated antisocial from “normal” individuals. Healthy cognitive development is an essential protective factor against antisocial behavior. Several well-known correlates of crime, such as irritability, impulsivity, and neuropsychological deficits are related to cognitive development, especially early in life (Rocque et al., 2012). Many factors seem to be related to healthy cognitive development, including physical activity and nutrition. Researchers have recently begun to recognize that cognitive or neurological development does not end in childhood, but extends throughout adolescence into early adulthood. This research on “brain maturation” indicates that changes in brain functioning contributes to elevated levels of risk taking in adolescence and to a decrease in such behavior by early adulthood (Giedd et al., 1999; Steinberg, 2008, 2010). It is important to point out that the results of this biosocial work indicate that the body does indeed matter with respect to crime (Wright et al., 2008). Just as important regarding prevention and treatment or rehabilitation is that no serious biocriminologist argues that biological factors operate in a vacuum. In fact, the term biosocial indicates that this body of work is concerned not only with direct effects but also with the interaction between biological and social risk factors. Thus, prevention and treatment approaches can work to decrease crime from a biosocial perspective by focusing on “the psychosocial half of the biosocial equation” (Raine, 2002, p. 71), or by attempting to manipulate biological risk factors.

Early Developmental Crime Prevention The developmental perspective holds that criminal offending in adolescence and adulthood is influenced by “behavioral and attitudinal patterns that have been learned during an individual’s development” (Tremblay & Craig, 1995, p. 151). Early environmental factors and interaction is widely recognized as being crucial for healthy biological development. In fact, a new policy statement by the American Association of Pediatrics states that early adversity in life can lead to severe impediments to healthy brain development (see also Doyle, Harmon, Heckman, & Tremblay, 2009). Much of the work in this area has shown that intervening early (even before birth) can have positive effects on later development, cognitive functioning, and, consequently, reduced levels of criminal behavior.

HEALTH AND NUTRITION Proper health and nutrition is recognized as an important factor in promoting normal development (Brown & Politte, 1996; Morley & Lucas, 1997; World Health Organization, 2000). Given this link, it follows that good nutrition early in life is related to later behavior. Several early developmental prevention programs incorporate nutrition (see Farrington & Welsh, 2007). A number of recent studies have


also examined the contemporaneous effect of nutritional supplements—such as fish oil—on behavior. This work focuses on Docosahexaenic acid (DHA) and Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), which have been demonstrated to have a positive effect on neurite outgrowth and consequently, better cognitive functioning (Liu, Raine, Venebles, & Mednick, 2006; Raine, Rocque, & Welsh, 2013). Using a variety of samples, several randomized controlled studies have shown that groups receiving fish oil supplements reduce aggression and anger compared to controls not receiving fish oil (Buydens-Branchey, Branchey, & Hibbeln, 2008; Gesch, Hammond, Hampson, Eves, & Crowder, 2002; Hallahan, Hibbeln, Davis, & Garland, 2007; Zaalberg, Nijman, Bulten, Stroosma, & van der Staak, 2010). In one example using an adult prisoner sample (N 211), Gesch et al. (2002) found that a nutritional supplement including fish oil resulted in a significant reduction in antisocial acts. Importantly, Raine et al. (2013) argued that fish oil supplements have been shown to be most effective for “at-risk” samples, which may make it a more appropriate strategy for secondary prevention (reviewed below). Related to cognitive or neurological deficits, researchers have found a relationship between mental health and antisocial behavior (DeCoster & Heimer, 2001; Fazel, Gulati, Linsell, Geddes, & Grann, 2009). Certain programs have addressed serious mental illness, and reviews have shown that they can be effective in preventing such disorders. Cuijpers, Van Straten, and Smit (2005) meta-analyzed 13 studies to prevent a range of disorders, including psychosis and anxiety. They found a combined relative risk of .73, which suggests the programs have the potential to prevent the onset of illnesses. Programs that prevent mental illness should logically also prevent the onset of antisocial behavior. In a study by Raine, Liu, Venables, and Mednick (2003), 100 children (age 3) were given an “environmental enrichment” program in which nursery school teachers attempted to improve the health, physical activity, and education of the participants. The program lasted a total of 2 years. Compared to a “community control group,” the intervention youth at age 17 had fewer behavioral problems and fewer signs of schizotypal personality. The authors noted that “it is conceivable that exercise by itself could account for a significant proportion of the observed effects. Exercise in animals is known to increase mRNA in the hippocampus and to have other beneficial effects on brain structure and function” (Raine et al., 2003, p. 1632). This finding has clear implications for crime prevention through a developmental approach. It seems evident that physical and nutritional health is important in reducing antisocial behavior.

HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS Certain early intervention programs are based on the premise that providing assistance to new or expecting mothers, often in the form of visiting health nurses, can promote healthy development. These programs generally target parenting skills and other behaviors that improve the bond between the child and parent. Reviews of home visitation programs generally demonstrate a positive impact on

435

436


child development (see Farrington & Welsh, 2007; Piquero, Farrington, Welsh, Tremblay, & Jennings, 2009; Tremblay & Craig, 1995; Tremblay & Japel, 2003). One way that home visitation programs may impact criminal behavior is through the prevention of neuropsychological or cognitive deficits along with a host of other risk factors (e.g., impulsivity, school failure). For example, teaching mothers to avoid the hazards of smoking or ingesting narcotics during pregnancy can reduce neuropsychological impairment of the infant (Beaver et al., 2010). The Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) program, created by David Olds in the 1970s and first tested in the 1980s in Elmira, New York, is one of the most widely known home visitation programs. The program has now been rolled out to many regions of the United States, including 400 counties and 32 separate states. It is becoming such an important program in the United States that a national office has been created to coordinate dissemination efforts. In the original evaluation, Olds et al. (1998) enrolled women in their second trimester who were at risk for having children with developmental and/or behavioral problems (e.g., teenage mother, unmarried, or poor). The study randomly assigned women to either the treatment group or a control group. The program, which lasted for 2 years, brought nurses into the women’s home to teach them about the benefits of healthy nutrition and proper childcare techniques. These techniques were meant to ensure proper physical (e.g., biological) development of the child/youth. Home visits occurred roughly 2 times a month during the course of treatment. Olds, Henderson, Chamberlin, and Tatelbaum (1986) found that the children who had been assigned to the treatment group fared much better than those in the control group. For example, there were significantly fewer instances of child abuse or neglect (4% vs. 19%). A 15-year follow-up of the original families (Olds et al., 1998) showed that the children (now age 15) who received the program had significantly fewer arrests than the control group. These results were attributed to better overall development and improved environment, which the program helped create. For example, follow ups of the women after the program showed that they were less likely to have engaged in child abuse and neglect (29% vs. 54%)—which are known to impede healthy child development (Olds et al., 1986, 1997). Further, studies have shown that children receiving the program have demonstrated “better language development” compared to untreated youth (Goodman, 2006, p. 14). This is indirect evidence that NFP may help prevent cognitive/neuropsychological deficits. Evaluations of the programs in other regions of the United States have similarly shown positive results long-term (Olds et al., 2007). However, in the most recent follow-up of the original Elmira sample (Eckenrode et al., 2010) results indicated that while treatment girls were still showing positive effects of treatment, the same was not true for boys. It is possible that the program effects are not as long lasting for boys as for girls. Other home visitation programs that attempt to improve parenting skills begin antenatal—that is, after the child is born (Doyle et al., 2009; Farrington, 2003). Few programs begin with a crime prevention goal, however. For example, in a comprehensive review of 40 parenting programs, Tremblay and Japel (2003)


found that many of these programs do not directly attempt to reduce antisocial behavior (or at least that is not their stated goal), but rather explicitly focus on the prevention of cognitive deficits through the strengthening of cognitive skills. These programs often show positive effects on later adjustment and behavior. This provides evidence of the important mechanisms linking biological or cognitive development and crime prevention. Other programs target what Tremblay and Craig (1995; see also Tremblay & Japel, 2003) term socially disruptive behaviors, including impulsivity and hyperactivity. The results of these programs have been mostly positive.

SCHOOL-BASED PROGRAMS Certain primary prevention programs aim to intervene with children in school settings. These programs attempt to prevent the emergence of antisocial behavior among youth in high-risk settings (e.g., family poverty). Often, these programs attempt to address traditional “biological” characteristics, once thought to be fixed (e.g., intelligence, personality factors). Perhaps the best-known school-based program is the Perry Preschool project, conducted in 1962 (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997). This program recruited 123 low income African American youth in Ypsilanti, Michigan, and through approximate random assignment provided preschool services to 58 of them. The intervention consisted of a program conducted at preschool supplemented with home visits (at age 3) meant to increase intellectual abilities and cognitive skills. The “plan-do-review” style program focused on intellectual enrichment to improve school outcomes. The results of several evaluations have consistently shown strong evidence that the program reduced delinquency/criminal behavior—from ages 13 to 40. For example, Schweinhart et al. (2005) in the latest follow-up at age 40 found that the treatment group compared to the control group had significantly fewer arrests (36% v. 55% were arrested 5 or more times), higher levels of both school achievement and employment, and larger annual salaries. Another school-based program that sought to tackle biological risk factors was the Johns Hopkins Research Center Project (Dolan et al., 1993). The program recruited children before individual risk factors emerged and used two basic interventions (the “good behavior game” and “mastery learning”) to promote cognition and control of behavior. The results showed a positive impact on reading ability and depression. The program also reduced aggression but only for selected groups (Tremblay & Craig, 1995). Finally, Second Step is a program that aims to reduce violence by teaching youth skills such as how to restrain immediate responses to provocations, how to effectively problem solve, and avoid aggression (Taub, 2001). The program has been designed for children as young as preschool. Results thus far have indicated that the program is effective in reducing aggression in schools as well as improving social competence (Institute of Education Science, 2008; Taub, 2001). Thus, the literature strongly suggests that school programs can have a positive impact on cognitive development, as well as improving problem behavior.

437

438


Interventions With At-Risk Children and Youth Secondary crime prevention focuses on children and youth who have already evidenced risk factors for later delinquency (including antisocial behavior). These programs take place in a variety of settings, including the home, school, and clinics. Several secondary crime prevention programs are classified as parenting programs, and they often follow the same steps as those reviewed above. The difference between primary and secondary parenting programs is that the former are implemented prior to the emergence of childhood risk factors (e.g., behavioral problems). The studies we review below focus on addressing the environment to promote healthy biological development. They often target youth who have evinced what are thought to be biological risk factors (e.g., impulsivity, low birth weight, cognitive deficits).

CHILD-CENTERED PROGRAMS Some programs target youth with nonbehavioral risk factors such as poor health. For example, the Infant Health and Development Program (Brooks-Gunn, Klebanov, Liaw, & Spiker, 1993) was developed to assist families with low birth weight children (a prominent biological risk factor for later crime and poorer overall outcomes—see McGloin, Pratt, & Piquero, 2006). This program provided child and parenting education as well as free medical and developmental services up to the third year of the child’s life. The medical services included pediatric care, as needed to ensure healthy development. Of the 1,028 infants enrolled, two groups were created, one comprising very low birth weight (< 2,000 grams) and one comprising those weighing slightly more (> 2,000 grams). Within each of these two groups, 33% were randomly assigned to the intervention and 77% to the control group (Brooks-Gunn & McCormick, 2009). Early evaluations showed that the program improved cognitive function and reduced problem behaviors (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1993; McCormick et al., 2006). Continued follow-ups, however, have suggested that the effect of the intervention may not have been long-lasting (McCormick et al., 2006). This may point to the need for continued intervention throughout childhood rather than ending it in the toddler stage. Another individual-centered program, titled Incredible Years, sought to intervene with children who had demonstrated conduct disorder or oppositional defiance disorder. These are traditionally thought of as psychological correlates, with biological underpinnings. This program has been identified as a Blueprints program by the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. This indicates that there is strong evidence that the program is effective. While the program includes a parenting and teacher training component, it focuses on helping the child control his or her emotions and develop healthy relationships (WebsterStratton & Reid, 2010). Several evaluations of the program indicate that it has a positive effect on the child’s behavior, with some evaluations indicating a reduction of conduct disorder to subclinical levels (Reid, Webster-Stratton, & Hammond, 2003; Webster-Stratton, Kolpacoff, & Hollinsworth, 1988).


Certain prevention programs have taken place within clinical settings. Kendall, Reber, McLeer, Epps, & Ronan (1990) evaluated a program for conduct disordered children (age 10) in a psychiatric hospital. Children with this disorder are typically impulsive and hyperactive, risk factors thought to be biologically influenced (Rocque et al., 2012). Research suggests that intervening early in the lives of such children can prevent later serious delinquency or crime (Kendall et al., 1990). The program evaluated by Kendall et al. was based on cognitive behavioral therapy, used individual sessions to teach coping and problem-solving skills, and reinforced good behavior. This program was compared to a psychotherapy treatment. The results demonstrated slight improvements in behavior and impulsivity (see also Tremblay & Craig, 1995) attributed to the cognitive behavioral therapy program. Other programs designed for children referred to clinics for treatment have shown positive impacts on later behavior (see for example, Scott, Spender, Doolan, Jacobs, & Aspland (2001), who utilized the Webster-Stratton parenting video intervention).

PARENTING PROGRAMS Parent management programs (Farrington & Welsh, 2007) sometimes begin after the emergence of antisocial behavior or conduct problems. These programs not only help reduce the emergence of biological risk factors for crime (e.g., cognitive deficits) but also attempt to interrupt the link between biological risk factors already present and later crime. For example, Kazdin (1997) states that parent management training programs seek to offer “treatment procedures in which parents are trained to alter their child’s behavior at home” (p. 1349). Such programs target parents of children who have demonstrated risk factors for antisocial or delinquent behavior. Sometimes, these risk factors include delinquency itself. However, because the programs take place before the youth have become involved in the justice system, they qualify as secondary. The Incredible Years program, mentioned above, includes a parenting component delivered via video or in the home. A prominent example of a secondary parenting program includes the work of Gerald Patterson at the Oregon Social Learning Center. Patterson’s program targets families of children with risk factors for delinquency. This program teaches parents to better supervise and reinforce behavior so that the child learns to regulate his or her own conduct. Evaluations of the program over time have demonstrated that it reduces the risk of delinquency and criminal behavior. For example, Patterson, Chamberlain, and Reid (1982) conducted a study that randomly assigned a small number of families with children identified as aggressive (e.g., displayed temper tantrums, hitting, etc.) to either parenting training or a wait list control group. The results showed a significant impact on child antisocial behavior after completion of the parenting program. In general, the literature suggests that parenting/family programs for youth with biological or psychological risk factors can positively affect child behavior (see Farrington, 2007; Tremblay & Japel, 2003).

439

440


SCHOOL-BASED PROGRAMS Several programs set within the school setting have been developed for youths for whom biological risk factors have already emerged. Conrod and colleagues (2010) reported on the results of a coping skills program targeting 13 to 16 year olds identified as having personality traits such as impulsivity or sensation seeking. The study randomly assigned 732 students from 24 schools to treatment and control conditions. The program, which consisted of two 90-minute therapy sessions, showed positive results. Specifically, the treatment group experienced a reduction in problem behaviors such as drug use compared to their control group participants. Shure and Spivack (1982) evaluated the Interpersonal Problem-Solving Intervention, a program designed to prevent the development of impulsivity and problem behavior. While one of the goals of the program was to prevent the emergence of impulsivity, it also targeted youths who had already been rated as impulsive. The intervention, implemented by teachers, was comprised of games, problem-solving lessons, and role-playing strategies. One-hundred and thirteen disadvantaged African American youth (ages 3 to 4) were given the treatment and compared to 106 control youth, though in a nonrandom fashion. The program, which took place over 2 years (from nursery school/daycare into kindergarten), demonstrated a positive impact on biological or biologically influenced factors such as IQ, behavior, and impulsivity. For example, at the end of the program, between 77% and 85% of the program children were rated as “adjusted” compared to just 30% of the controls. In sum, individual, parenting, and school-based secondary prevention programs have shown significant promise in reducing antisocial behavior. Many of these programs target individuals with identified biological risk factors or operate by improving such factors (e.g., cognitive deficits). It seems reasonable to suggest that these programs indirectly affect antisocial behavior through these biological risk factors. For example, many of the programs noted above sought to strengthen problem-solving and interpersonal skills. These skills are essential in interacting, coping, and adjusting in today’s world. Further, the programs address biological risk factors in a way that targets the environment, thus illustrating how a biosocial perspective informs policy without radically altering physiological characteristics.

Offender Rehabilitation COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY Perhaps the most broadly supported approach to offender rehabilitation is cognitive behavioral therapy (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) emerged from the work of Beck (1963) and is a combination of cognitive and behavioral approaches. The basic idea is that changing attitudes or cognitions can be paired with changes in behavior (Milkman & Wanberg, 2007). CBT attempts to


reinforce positive behavior and teach offenders how to recognize environments in which they are likely to be tempted to engage in antisocial acts (Vaske et al., 2011). Comprehensive reviews of CBT have indicated a substantial (22%) reduction in future criminal behavior and that the strategy is equally effective for juveniles as for adults (Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005). Typically, CBT is seen as a psychological rather than biosocial approach. However, Vaske et al. (2011) argue that many of the cognitive functions that CBT targets (such as impulsivity, self-control, perspective, and agreeableness) have neurological underpinnings. It may be that CBT works to alter neurological functioning, thus enabling offenders to change their behavior. They suggest that “cognitive behavioral therapies for mental disorders may improve functioning in the frontal cortex, parietal cortex, cingulate cortex, hippocampus, and cerebellum” (Vaske et al., p. 96). Thus, CBT for offenders may have similar effects. Casey, Day, Vess, and Ward (2013) agree with this assessment. In particular, they suggest that a variant of CBT, called dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), which was initially developed for those with borderline personality disorder, has the potential to be effective for offender rehabilitation. They argue that this may be due to DBT’s focus on biologically based personality traits related to crime (e.g., impulsivity, aggression, temper, etc.). Finally, sexual offenders, a population widely thought to be affected by biological risk factors, respond best to CBT (Wormith et al., 2007). It seems clear that CBT has been demonstrated to address rehabilitation in a biosocially informed manner.

DRUG TREATMENT Additionally, it has been well-recognized that drug use and abuse plays a major role in a significant portion of offenses. Research has shown that roughly one third of state and federal prisoners were under the influence of drugs when they committed the offense for which they are incarcerated (Mumola & Karberg, 2006). Addiction to substances such as drugs or alcohol is a disorder that affects and is affected by the neurobiology of the brain (Goldstein, 2001). Neurological researchers posit that the process of moving from drug using to drug addiction takes place within the prefrontal cortex and striatum areas of the brain (Everitt & Robbins, 2005) and involves a change in brain functioning (Koob & Le Moal, 2005). Perhaps not surprisingly, given the link between CBT and drug treatment (Magill & Ray, 2009), research has shown that drug treatment in an offender rehabilitation setting can be effective, not only in reducing drug use/dependence but also future offending. Studies of drug (or other substance) treatment for offenders have shown mixed results, ranging from modestly to highly effective. A systematic review conducted by the Campbell Collaboration (Mitchell, Wilson, & MacKenzie, 2012) found over 70 independent evaluations of drug treatment in prisons. The overall results indicated that incarceration-based drug treatment reduced the odds of future offending, and the effect was stronger for programs considered “therapeutic communities.” A systematic review performed by Egli, Pina, Skovbo Christensen, Aebi, and Killias (2009) found that programs addressing drug use by replacement

441

442


therapy (e.g., methadone) have the potential to significantly reduce future crime. Finally, drug treatment courts represent an alternative sanctioning approach that allows offenders to avoid criminal courts with successful completion of treatment. Randomized studies (see, e.g., Gottfredson, Najaka, & Kearley, 2003) as well as meta-analyses of rigorous evaluations suggest this strategy reduces future criminal offending (Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, et al., 2012).

PHYSICAL HEALTH Few offender rehabilitation programs appear to target physical health as a risk factor for crime. One interesting and innovative program in the United Kingdom, called “Healthier Children, Safer Communities,” improves physical health as a way to reduce antisocial acts (National Health Service, 2009). Specifically, the program seeks to ensure that youth who have come in contact with the justice system are given all the resources necessary to improve and maintain their health and wellbeing. Recent research is discovering strong links between offending and poor health over the life-course (Piquero, Daigle, Gibson, Piquero, & Tibbetts, 2007; Piquero, Farrington, Nagin, & Moffitt, 2010). However, whether physical health is a direct risk factor for crime is not well established in the literature. Those involved in the U.K. program argue that improving physical health may also indirectly decrease problem behavior, perhaps through psychological mechanisms, such as self-esteem.

Discussion and Conclusions The early critiques of biologically oriented crime control policies were not illconceived. Indeed, the lessons learned from the “misuse” of science to discriminate and perform atrocities against less powerful groups still serve as a warning that making the connection between biology and behavior can be a slippery slope (Rafter, 2008a; Rose, 2000). However, as we have made an effort to show in this chapter, the biosocial approaches in criminology are no longer borne of prejudice or racism, but rather objective, value-free science (see Cullen, 2009; Rocque et al., 2012). In fact, advances in the biological sciences have exploded in the last 10 to 15 years, prompting some to argue that “the biological sciences have made more progress in advancing our understanding about behavior in the past 10 years than sociology has made in the past 50 years” (Robinson, 2004, p. 4) and that the 1990s was the “decade of the brain” (Goldstein, 1994). Despite this history of antagonism between the sociological and biologically oriented criminologists, the new trend is toward a biosocial perspective, which recognizes that biology does not operate in a vacuum. Rather, human development (and behavior) involves the body and the environment. Consequently, the policy implications emerging from this perspective do as much, if not more, to change the environment of those at risk as they do to change biology (Raine, 2002). The examples from crime prevention and offender rehabilitation that we have detailed above demonstrate that the policy implications from biosocial


criminology are amenable to sociological criminology. Further, the prevention strategies that align with biosocial criminology are among the most effective in reducing future offending. Our aim in this chapter was not to show that the policy implications from a biosocial perspective are sufficient to declare a “winner” in the nature versus nurture debate. Rather, it was to demonstrate the compatibility between biosocial and social criminology. Blind allegiance to one side or the other is likely to stall scientific advancement, whereas a recognition of the validity of social and biological perspectives will help further our understanding of the causes of criminal offending—and the best methods to prevent it.

References Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2009). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: Matthew Bender. Baker, L. A., Bezdjian, S., & Raine, A. (2006). Behavioral genetics: The science of antisocial behavior. Law and Contemporary Problems, 69(1–2), 7–26. Beaver, K. M., DeLisi, M., Vaughn, M. G., & Wright, J. P. (2010). The intersection of genes and neuropsychological deficits in the prediction of adolescent delinquency and low selfcontrol. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(1), 22–42. Beaver, K. M., Wright, J. P., DeLisi, M., Walsh, A., Vaughn, M. G., Boisvert, D., & Vaske, J. (2007). A gene× gene interaction between DRD2 and DRD4 is associated with conduct disorder and antisocial behavior in males. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 3(30). doi:10.1186/1744–9081–3-30 Beck, A. T. (1963). Thinking and depression: I. Idiosyncratic content and cognitive distortions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 9(4), 324–333. Brooks-Gunn, J., & McCormick, M. (2009). Infant health and development program. Retrieved from http://www.promising practices.net/program.asp?programid 136 Brooks-Gunn, J., Klebanov, P. K., Liaw, F., & Spiker, D. (1993). Enhancing the development of low-birthweight, premature infants: Changes in cognition and behavior over the first three years. Child Development, 64(3), 736–753. Brown, J. L., & Politt, E. (1996). Malnutrition, poverty, and intellectual development. Scientific American, 274(2), 38–43. Buydens-Branchey, L., Branchey, M., & Hibbeln, J. R. (2008). Associations between increases in plasma n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids following supplementation and decreases in anger and anxiety in substance abusers. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry, 32(2), 568–575. Carrington, C. (1909). Sterilization of habitual criminals. Transactions of the Fortieth Annual Session of the Medical Society of Virginia. Richmond, VA: Everett Waddey Company. Casey, S., Day, A., Vess, J., & Ward, T. (2013). Foundations of offender rehabilitation. New York, NY: Routledge. Conrod, P. J., Castellanos-Ryan, N., & Strang, J. (2010). Brief, personality-targeted coping skills interventions and survival as a non-drug user over a 2-year period during adolescence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(1), 85–93.

Cuijpers, P., Van Straten, A., & Smit, F. (2005). Preventing the incidence of new cases of mental disorders: A metaanalytic review. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 193(2), 119–125. Cullen, F. (2009). Preface. In A. Walsh & K. M. Beaver (Eds.), Biosocial criminology: New directions in theory and research (pp. xv–xvii). New York, NY: Routledge. DeCoster, S., & Heimer, K. (2001). The relationship between law violation and depression: An interactions analysis. Criminology, 39(4), 799–836. Dolan, L. J., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Werthamer-Larsson, L., Rebok, G. W., & Mayer, L. S., . . . Turkkan, J. S. (1993). The short-term impact of two classroom-based preventive interventions on aggressive and shy behaviors and poor achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 14(3), 317–345. Doyle, O., Harmon, C. P., Heckman, J. J., & Tremblay, R. E. (2009). Investing in early human development: Timing and economic efficiency. Economics and Human Biology, 7, 1–6. Dugdale, R. L. (1877). The Jukes: A study in crime, pauperism, disease, and heredity, also further studies of criminals (5th ed.). New York, NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Eckenrode, J., Campa, M., Luckey, D. W., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Kitzman, H., . . . Olds, D. (2010). Long-term effects of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on the life course of youths: 19-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 164(1), 9–15. Egli, N., Pina, M., Skovbo Christensen, P., Aebi, M., & Killias, M. (2009). Effects of drug substitution programs on offending among drug-addicts. Campbell Collaboration. doi:10.4073/ csr.2009.3 Everitt, B. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2005). Neural systems of reinforcement for drug addiction: from actions to habits to compulsion. Nature Neuroscience, 8(11), 1481–1489. Eysenck, H. J. (1964). Crime and personality. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Farrington, D. P. (1997). The relationship between low resting heart rate and violence. In A. Raine, P. A. Brennan, D. Farrington, & S. A. Mednick (Eds.), Biosocial bases of violence (pp. 89–105). New York, NY: Plenum. Farrington, D. P. (2003). Advancing knowledge about the early prevention of adult antisocial behavior. In D. P. Farrington & J. Coid (Eds.), Early prevention of adult antisocial behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

443

444

PART IV: TRENDS, CURRENT ISSUES, AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS Farrington, D. P. (2007). Developmental criminology and riskfocused prevention. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (Vol. 4, pp. 657–701). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2007). Saving children from a life of crime: Early risk factors and effective interventions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Fazel, S., Gulati, G., Linsell, L., Geddes, J. R., & Grann, M. (2009). Schizophrenia and violence: Systematic review and metaanalysis. PLoS Medicine, 6(8), e1000120. doi:10.1371/ journal.pmed.1000120 Gesch, C. B., Hammond, S. M., Hampson, S. E., Eves, A., & Crowder, M. J. (2002). Influence of supplementary vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids on the antisocial behaviour of young adult prisoners: Randomised, placebo-controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 181, 22–28. Giedd, J. N., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N. O., Castellanos, F. X., Liu, H., Zijdenbos, A., . . . Rapoport, J. L. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence: a longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2(10), 861–862. Goldstein, A. (2001). Addiction: From biology to drug policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Goldstein, M. (1994). Decade of the brain. An agenda for the nineties. Western Journal of Medicine, 161(3), 239–241. Goodman, A. (2006). The story of David Olds and the nurse home visiting program. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Gottfredson, D. C., Najaka, S. S., & Kearley, B. (2003). Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial. Criminology & Public Policy, 2(2), 171–196. Hallahan, B., Hibbeln, J. R., Davis, J. M., & Garland, M. R. (2007). Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in patients with recurrent self-harm: Single-centre double-blind randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(2), 118–122. Hare, R. D. (1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. New York, NY: The Pocket Press. Institute of Education Science. (2008). Reducing behavior problems in the elementary school classroom. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Kazdin, A. E. (1997). Parent management training: Evidence, outcomes, and issues. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(10), 1349–1356. Kendall, P. C., Reber, M., McLeer, S., Epps, J., & Ronan, K. R. (1990). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of conduct-disordered children. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14(3), 279–297. Koob, G. F., & Le Moal, M. (2005). Plasticity of reward neurocircuitry and the ‘dark side’ of drug addiction. Nature Neuroscience, 8(11), 1442–1444. Landenberger, N. A., & Lipsey, M. W. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: A metaanalysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(4), 451–476. Liu, J., Raine, A., Venebles, P., & Mednick, S. A. (2006). Malnutrition, brain dysfunction, and antisocial criminal behavior. In A. Raine. (Ed.), Crime and schizophrenia: Causes and cures. New York, NY: Nova Science. Lorber, M. F. (2004). Psychophysiology of aggression, psychopathy, and conduct problems: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4), 531–552. Magill, M., & Ray, L. A. (2009). Cognitive-behavioral treatment with adult alcohol and illicit drug users: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 70(4), 516–527.

McCormick, M. C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Buka, S. L., Goldman, J., Yu, J., & Salganik, M., . . . Casey, P. H. (2006). Early intervention in low birth weight premature infants: Results at 18 years of age for the Infant Health and Development Program. Pediatrics, 117(3), 771–780. McGloin, J. M., Pratt, T. C., & Piquero, A. R. (2006). A life-course analysis of the criminogenic effects of maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy: A research note on the mediating impact of neuropsychological deficit. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(4), 412–426. Milkman, H. B., & Wanberg, K. W. (2007). Cognitive-behavioral treatment: A review and discussion for corrections professionals. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., and MacKenzie, D. L. (2012). The effectiveness of incarceration-based drug treatment on criminal behavior: A systematic review. Campbell Collaboration. doi:10.4073/csr.2012.18 Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., MacKenzie, D. L. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(1). 60–71. Morley, R., & Lucas, A. (1997). Nutrition and cognitive development. British Medical Bulletin, 53(1), 123–134. Mumola, C. J., & Karberg, J. C. (2006). Drug use and dependence, state and federal prisoners, 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Health Service. (2009). Healthy children, safer communities: A strategy to promote the health and well-being of children and young people in contact with the youth justice system. London, UK: HMSO. Olds, D. L., Eckenrode, J., Henderson, C. R., Kitzman, H., Powers, J., Cole, R., . . . Luckey, D. (1997). Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(8), 637–643. Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Chamberlin, R., & Tatelbaum, R. (1986). Preventing child abuse and neglect: A randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics, 78(1), 65–78. Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H., Hanks, C., Cole, R., Anson, E., SidoraArcoleo, K., . . . Tutt, R. A. (2007). Effects of nurse home visiting on maternal and child functioning: Age-9 followup of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 120(4), e832–e845. Olds, D., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D., . . . Powers, J. (1998). Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children’s criminal and antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(14), 1238–1244. Patterson, G. R., Chamberlain, P., & Reid, J. B. (1982). A comparative evaluation of a parent-training program. Behavior Therapy, 13(5), 638–650. Piquero, A. R., Daigle, L. E., Gibson, C., Piquero, N. L., & Tibbetts, S. G. (2007). Research note: Are life-coursepersistent offenders at risk for adverse health outcomes? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(2), 185–207. Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., Nagin, D. S., & Moffitt, T. E. (2010). Trajectories of offending and their relation to life failure in late middle age: Findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(2), 151–173. Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., Tremblay, R., & Jennings, W. G. (2009). Effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(2), 83–120.

Chapter 26: Policy Implications of Biosocial Criminology Rafter, N. H. (1998). Creating born criminals. Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Rafter, N. H. (2008a). Criminology’s darkest hour: Biocriminology in Nazi Germany. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(2), 287–306. Rafter, N. H. (2008b). The criminal brain: Understanding biological theories of crime. New York: New York University Press. Raine A. (2013). The anatomy of violence: The biological roots of crime. New York, NY: Pantheon. Raine, A. (1996). Autonomic nervous system activity and violence. In D. M. Stoff & R. B. Cairns (Eds.), Aggression and violence: Genetic, neurobiological, and biosocial perspectives (pp. 145–168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Raine, A. (2002). The biological basis of crime. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime: Public policies for crime control (2nd ed., pp. 43–74). Oakland, CA: ICS Press. Raine, A., & Portnoy, J. (2012). Biology of crime: Past, present, and future perspectives. In R. Loeber & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The future of criminology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Raine, A., Buchsbaum, M. S., Stanley, J., Lottenberg, S., Abel, L., & Stoddard, J. (1994). Selective reductions in prefrontal glucose metabolism in murderers. Biological Psychiatry, 36(6), 365–373. Raine, A., Buchsbaum, M., & Lacasse, L. (1997). Brain abnormalities in murderers indicated by positron emission tomography. Biological Psychiatry, 42(6), 495–508. Raine, A., Liu, J., Venables, P., & Mednick, S. A. (2003). Preventing crime and schizophrenia using early environmental enrichment. In A. Raine (Ed.), Crime and schizophrenia: Causes and cures. New York, NY: Nova Sciences. Raine, A., Rocque, M., & Welsh, B. C. (2013). Experimental neurocriminology: Etiology and treatment. In B. C. Welsh, A. A. Braga, & J. N. Gerben (Eds.), Experimental criminology: Prospects for advancing science and public policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Raine, A., Venables, P. H., & Mednick, S. A. (1997). Low resting heart rate at age 3 years predisposes to aggression at age 11 years: Evidence from the Mauritius Child Health Project. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(10), 1457–1464. Ramsden, S., Richardson, F. M., Josse, G., Thomas, M. S. C., Ellis, C., Shakeshaft, C., . . . Price, C. J. (2011). Verbal and non-verbal intelligence changes in the teenage brain. Nature, 479, 113–116. Reid, M. J., Webster-Stratton, C., & Hammond, M. (2003). Follow-up of children who received the Incredible Years intervention for oppositional-defiant disorder: Maintenance and prediction of 2-year outcome. Behavior Therapy, 34(4), 471–491. Robinson, M. (2004). Why crime? An integrated systems theory of antisocial behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rocque, M., Welsh, B. C., & Raine, A. (2012). Biosocial criminology and modern crime prevention. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(3), 306–312. Rose, N. (2000). The biology of culpability. Theoretical Criminology, 4(1), 5–34. Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1997). The High/Scope preschool curriculum comparison study through age 23. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(2), 117–143. Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The HighScope Perry

Preschool study through age 40. (Monographs of the HighScope Educational Research Foundation, 14). Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press. Scott, S., Spender, Q., Doolan, M., Jacobs, B., & Aspland, H. (2001). Multicentre controlled trial of parenting groups for childhood antisocial behaviour in clinical practice. British Medical Journal, 323, 194–197. Shure, M. B., & Spivack, G. (1982). Interpersonal problem-solving in young children: A cognitive approach to prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10(3), 341–356. Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28, 78–106. Steinberg, L. (2010). Commentary: A behavioral scientist looks at the science of adolescent brain development. Brain and Cognition, 72(1), 160–164. Taub, J. (2001). Evaluation of the second step violence prevention program at a rural elementary school. School Psychology Review, 31(2), 186–200. Tremblay, R. E., & Japel, C. (2003). Prevention during pregnancy, infancy and the preschool years. In D. P. Farrington & J. W. Coid (Eds.), Early prevention of adult antisocial behaviour (pp. 205–242). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tremblay, R., & Craig, W. (1995). Developmental crime prevention. Crime and Justice, 19, 151–236. Vaske, J., Galyean, K., & Cullen, F. T. (2011). Toward a biosocial theory of offender rehabilitation: Why does cognitivebehavioral therapy work? Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(1), 90–102. Walsh, A., & Beaver, K. M. (2009). Biosocial criminology: New directions in theory and research. New York, NY: Routledge. Webster-Stratton, C., & Reid, M. J. (2010). The Incredible Years Parents, Teachers, and Children Training Series: A multifaceted treatment approach for young children. In J. Weisz & A. Kazdin (Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents, (2nd ed., pp. 194–210). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Webster-Stratton, C., Kolpacoff, M., & Hollinsworth, T. (1988). Self-administered videotape therapy for families with conduct-problem children: Comparison with two costeffective treatments and a control group. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(4), 558–566. World Health Organization. (2000). Nutrition for Health and Development (NHD). Progress report. Retrieved from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2000/WHO_NHD_00.6.pdf Wormith, J. S., Althouse, R., Simpson, M., Reitzel, L. R., Fagan, T. J., & Morgan, R. D. (2007). The rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders the current landscape and some future directions for correctional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(7), 879–892. Wright, J. P., Beaver, K. M., DeLisi, M., Vaughn, M. G., Boisvert, D., & Vaske, J. (2008). Lombroso’s legacy: The miseducation of criminologists. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19(3), 325–338. Yang, Y., & Raine A. (2009). Prefrontal structural and functional brain imaging findings in antisocial, violent, and psychopathic individuals: A meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 174(2), 81–88. Zaalberg, A., Nijman, H., Bulten, E., Stroosma, L., & van der Staak, C. (2010). Effects of nutritional supplements on aggression, rule-breaking, and psychopathology among young adult prisoners. Aggressive Behavior, 36(2), 117–126.

445