Conclusion: the relevance of biological positivism in the modern society

Chapter Six: Conclusion

Despite the in-depth research there is still much debate on the true causes of crime. The central importance of identifying the causes of crime has been discussed through this dissertation. With both crime rates, and reoffending rates, being considerably high (Office for National Statistics, 2013 ; Ministry of Justice, 2013) it is vital that the causes of crime are identified, and individuals are therefore dealt with accordingly, in order for these figures to decrease.

After researching into biological positivism, the use of biological theories in the current criminal justice system are identifiably lacking with more emphasis on environmental factors being seen as the causes of crime. A biosocial, multi-factor, approach has been formed over the recent years incorporating environmental, social, and biological factors (Hopkins Burke, 2009) nevertheless there seems to be an ignorance of biological factors.

The aim of this dissertation was to identify the relevance of biological positivism in the modern society through an analysis of existing literature. The main focus of the research was to identify contemporary biological ideas, and then examine how they influenced punishment in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Theses influences were then analysed in terms of effectiveness, with ethical issues later being questioned.

Biological positivism is relevant in today’s society. The research does not suggest that biological factors are the sole cause of criminal behaviour for every individual offender, but that it can have an influence on an individual’s susceptibility to commit a crime (Hopkins Burke, 2009). Environmental and social factors also later contribute to shape the offender.

Early biological theories stemmed from the work of Lombroso. Although his work is largely discredited, he laid the foundation on which much more plausible explanations could be formed. Research into contemporary biological explanations, including twins studies and hormones, has led to the conclusion that criminality in a minority of offenders is solely caused by biological factors (Hopkins Burke, 2009).

Although these more contemporary biological ideas have been shown to be credible, this credibility does not seem to be reflected in the current criminal justice system. Biological positivists have favoured treatment over punishment as way of dealing with offenders (Cavadino and Dignan, 2007). This dissertation has recognised that emphasis is currently placed on punishment, and primarily, imprisonment. There have been many attempts over the years to adopt a treatment approach however, due to both financial and time-related restrictions, these attempts have been limited considerably.

This limitation implies that sex offences are the only offences seen as a result of a biological defect in the offender. The rationale behind treatment being offered only to sex offenders however, is quite noticeably the result of some other reason: sex offenders are the most despised group of offenders, even among other offenders and therefore there is an increased pressure on the criminal justice system to ensure that these offenders do not re-offend. Specialised treatment techniques such as chemical castration have therefore been developed to deal with them (Miller, 1998).

An implication of these findings, that a person’s biology does have an effect on their susceptibility to commit crime, is that biological defects should be taken into account for all offenders and in turn, treatment should be offered to every individual offender despite costs. Although prison is used most commonly to punish offenders, and is arguably cheaper than treatment, long term costs are substantial. This suggests that it is more beneficial for the criminal justice system to invest in something that works to rehabilitate the offender and prevent them from reoffending, than to incarcerate them preventing them from offending only on a short term basis. It is important that the cause of crime in each individual offender is identified and then dealt with accordingly.

There have been numerous analyses of the treatment model in terms of ethical issues however authors of these analyses have either concluded that treatment violates all of the offenders fundamental rights, or none of them (Miller, 1998). The analysis of these ethical issues through this dissertation has led to the conclusion that the current forms of treatment, offered on a voluntary basis, are not in breach of offenders’ rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. There is an underlying issue of discrimination however, under article 14 ECHR, as it can be argued that treatment offered only to sex offenders is discriminating – it is discriminating for sex offenders, and also discriminating for those offenders that are not offered treatment.

By offering treatment to all offenders it will ensure that any biological influences to crime in offenders can be addressed, and then treated. It has been earlier identified that not all offenders have a biological predisposition, but for those offenders that do, it may rehabilitate the individual and prevent reoffending. In response to this, article 14 ECHR and the prohibition of discrimination may not be as much of a concern. To offer treatment to all offenders would be a step towards removing this cause of discrimination. Other ethical issues surrounding treatment, including informed and valid consent, and off-label drugs, have also been addressed in this dissertation, and have been seen to be justified.

Recommendations

• It has been identified that research into twin studies, in particular monozygotic twins, is the most credible in terms of ascertaining the influence of genetics on criminal behaviour. It is therefore recommended that if it were possible to locate a representative sample of monozygotic twins who satisfied experimental conditions, being separated at birth and growing up in different environments, then the true extent of how much influence our genes have on criminal behaviour can be determined.
• The criminal justice system must recognise that other offences, not only sex offences, can be the result of a genetic defect and consequently treatment should be offered to all offenders.
• Treatment given should be appropriate for the offender, and offered on a voluntary basis in order to avoid potential ethical issues. To ensure consent is free, informed and valid, offenders should be assessed to ensure they have the mental capacity to give consent, and to ensure they are aware of all risks involved. Although long term effects are unknown, as long as the offender is aware of the uncertainty then informed consent is not an issue. Drugs should also be licensed for the purpose of treating offenders. More rigorous testing is needed using double-blind randomised trials along with full medical tests prior to, during and after treatment (Harrison, 2008).
• Genetic aberrations should be considered as a mitigating factor with consideration given to biological influences on the offender when sentencing.