Biological positivism in the modern society

Chapter One: Introduction

“Our society has decided that man is a creature born of free will. At the same time, our system recognises that attitudes may be influenced by environmental factors.” (Taylor, 1984: 9) Adults who engage in criminal conduct are seen as having values which are distorted by adverse environmental conditions. “Guilt then is premised upon the concept that everyone who commits an act does so out of an exercise of free will. A person is fully capable of not committing the act, should he or she so desire.” (Taylor, 1984: 10) This approach is referred to as the ‘classicist approach’.

Classicists have achieved near-total victory in the recent years resulting in our criminal justice system being founded upon the concept that criminal behaviour is the complete result of environmental influences, that it is nurture that shapes conduct. This has caused our social institutions to attempt to correct deviant behaviour through modification to environmental influences – through prison and rehabilitation programmes.

The number of offences recorded by the police in the UK between June 2012 and June 2013 is 3.7 million (Office for National Statistics, 2013). It needs to be questioned whether this crime level is the result of a troubled society or the result of a breakdown in the criminal justice system? Recidivism is still occurring with more than one in four criminals reoffending within a year of release (Ministry of Justice, 2013). A possible reason for this could be that the whole premise on which we base our criminal justice is defective.

If this classicist premise is wrong then it is no wonder that recidivism is continuing to happen and that as a society we are failing to eradicate crime. If the actual cause of crime is identified then there is the potential of eliminating crime, easing pain, and instilling common trust and security.

Stephen Mobley had all the attributes of a natural born killer. At the age of 25, he walked into a pizza store and shot the manager in the neck after robbing the till. Nobody could blame his upbringing – he came from a white, middle-class American family and had not been abused as a child. In 1995 he was waiting on death row in Georgia to hear whether his appointment with the electric chair was confirmed. His lawyer tried to plea that his murder was not the evil result of free will but the tragic consequence of a genetic predisposition. His aunt, a witness for the defence, testified that various members of their family over the past four generations have been very violent, aggressive and criminal. She told the court how the Mobley family had had murder, rape, robbery, and suicide. His lawyer therefore argued that there is no legal defence to Mobley’s crime. Mobley’s family history is an obvious mitigating factor and his actions may not have been a product totally of free will (Connor, 1995).

To date, there has been little agreement that a person’s biology has an influence on crime. Early biological theorists such as Lombroso have been widely discredited mainly on the basis of a flawed methodology however the recent and more contemporary biological explanations of crime have been shown to more credible.

This dissertation will explore contemporary biological ideas on crime – the role of genetics. What if there are people that are genetically predisposed to commit crimes? Should they be held to account for their actions that may have been completely beyond their control? In light of the apparent failures of our current criminal justice system, it is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the real causes of crime. Can we afford to ignore the possibility that criminal behaviour could be due to genetics?

There is also the issue of how society should deal with the offender whose crime was genetically influenced? Society has decided that no individual should be held accountable for acts performed when he or she is mentally incapacitated. We have the defence of insanity when people who have a ‘disease of the mind’ commit crimes. It needs to be considered whether genetic aberration should be considered in mitigation of, or as a defence to, a criminal charge.

Some would say that to accept the notion that criminals are born rather than made would be opening a gateway to a moral minefield causing other factors including society, unemployment, and upbringing to be ignored (Connor, 1995).

General Research Aim

It is the purpose of this dissertation to assess the relevance of biological positivism in the modern society through way of literature analysis. I will briefly explore early biological theories such as those of Lombroso and his idea of a ‘criminal man’, moving on to discuss contemporary biological ideas – the influence of a person’s genetics on criminal behaviour. The research will explore the effectiveness of punishment and how biological ideas may have influenced punishment by placing emphasis on the treatment of offenders. Finally, the ethical implications surrounding the treatment model will be considered.

Aims and Objectives

In order to successfully answer my research aim, a number of sub-questions must be considered:

1. How does society view crime?

This dissertation begins by explaining why further research into the topic is essential. The main body of this dissertation will be introduced with a discussion of how our society currently views crime – is it a product of a person’s biological influences, environmental influences, or a combination of the two?

2. What is biological positivism?

In order to assess the relevance of biological positivism in the modern society, I must first clarify what biological positivism actually is. I will explore early biological theories leading on to a discussion of contemporary biological ideas. Relevant case studies will be looked at to inspect the usefulness of these present day theories in explaining crime and criminal behaviour.

3. How has biological positivism affected punishment?

The dissertation will then move on to assess how these theories, previously discussed, have affected punishment. In order to do this I will first look to why we punish and what forms of punishment are currently used in the UK. Using reoffending statistics I will critically analyse the effectiveness of these current forms of punishment, leading on to a discussion about an alternative to punishment suggested by biological positivists: The role of treatment.

4. Is the treatment model effective?

The effectiveness of the treatment model will then be evaluated. Consequently, emphasis on treatment over punishment carries huge ethical implications. These ethical implications will be discussed with an in depth exploration on the incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998.

5. Are there any proposals for change to the current criminal justice system which suggests a move towards the treatment of offenders?

Finally, any proposals for change in the criminal justice system put forward by the Government will be discussed – if they are of relevance to key points highlighted in this dissertation. Suggestions for future changes in the criminal justice system made by biological theorists will also be argued.