Criminal Law

Knowledge
is also found where a defendant suspects that circumstances exist and
“deliberately decides not to make any further enquiries” in case his
suspicions prove well founded.  A common example is a person who purchases
signally inexpensive and unprofaned, but desirable items from a stranger. Such
a person is likely to be fixed with constructive knowledge that the items were stolen.

Imputed knowledge:

This
is relevant in strict liability offences and in corporate
crime. For example, if a bar manager delegates his duties to others and
those others know of unlawful activities on the premises, the manager can be
fixed with imputed knowledge of the unlawful activities.

Recklessness
(criminal):

In
the criminal
law, recklessness (sometimes also termed willful
blindness which may have a different meaning in the United
States) is one of the four possible classes of mental state constituting mens rea (the
Latin for
“guilty mind”). To commit an offence of ordinary as opposed to strict
liability, the prosecution must be able to prove both a mens rea and an actus reus,
i.e., a person cannot be guilty for thoughts alone. There must also be an
appropriate intention, knowledge, recklessness, or criminal negligence at the relevant time.
Recklessness may constitute an offense against property or
involve significant
danger to
another person.

Criminal
law recognizes recklessness as one of the mens rea
elements to establish liability. It shows less culpability
than intention, but more culpability than criminal negligence. The test of any mens rea
element is always based on an assessment of whether the accused had foresight
of the prohibited consequences and desired to cause those consequences to
occur. The three types of test are:

a.
subjective where
the court attempts
to establish what the accused was actually thinking at the time the actus reus
was caused;

b.
objective where
the court imputes mens rea elements on the basis that a reasonable
person with the same general knowledge and abilities as the accused would
have had those elements, although R v Gemmell and Richards deprecated this in
the UK; or

c.
Hybrid, i.e. the test is both
subjective and objective.

The
most culpable mens rea elements will have both foresight and desire on a
subjective basis. Recklessness usually arises when an accused is actually aware
of the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, but has gone
ahead anyway, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of
suffering the foreseen harm but not actually desiring that the victim be hurt.
The accused is a social danger because he or she is gambling with the safety of
others and the fact that the accused might have taken some steps to try to
avoid the injury from occurring is relevant only to mitigate the sentence.
Note that gross criminal negligence represents such a serious failure to foresee
that in any other person, it would have been recklessness. Hence, the
alternative phrase “willful blindness” acknowledges the link
representing either that the accused deliberately engineered a situation in
which he or she was ignorant of material facts, or that the failure to foresee
represented such a danger to others that it must be treated as though it was
reckless.

English law:

The
modern definition of recklessness has developed from R v. Cunningham (1957) 2
AER 412 in which the definition of ‘maliciously’ for the purposes of the Offences Against The Person Act
1861 was held to require a subjective rather than objective test when a man
released gas from the mains while attempting to steal money from the pay-meter.
As a result the gas leaked into the house next door, and partially asphyxiated
the man’s mother-in-law:

In
any statutory definition of a crime, malice must be taken … as requiring
either:

(1)
An actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that in fact was done; or

(2)
Recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (i.e. the accused has
foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to
take the risk of it).

Since
then, the pendulum has swung between subjective and objective, and currently
rests nearer to the subjective end of the scale.

American Law:

Black’s
Law Dictionary defines recklessness in American law as “Conduct whereby
the actor does not desire harmful consequence but…foresees the possibility
and consciously takes the risk,” or alternatively as “a state of mind
in which a person does not care about the consequences of his or her
actions.” Black’s Law dictionary 1053 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 8th ed. abr.
2005). In American courts, a wrongdoer who recklessly causes harm can be held
to the same liability as a person who intentionally does so. R v
Caldwell (1982) 1 AER 961

Caldwell,
a disgruntled former hotel employee who had recently been fired by his boss,
got very drunk one night in late 1979 and decided to set fire to his former
employer’s hotel, intending to damage the property. At the time he set the
blaze, however, there were ten guests asleep inside the hotel, and though the
fire was extinguished quickly, Caldwell was charged not only with arson (to
which he pleaded guilty), but with the more serious charge of arson with intent
to endanger human life.

In
English law, the offence of “arson” was abolished in the Criminal Damage Act 1971, although the use
of the word was retained to express the particular “horror” with
which the public views offences involving the deliberate use of fire. Caldwell
was convicted under s1(2) Act 1971, which requires that the defendant shall:

(a)
Intend to destroy or damage any property or be reckless as to [the same] and

(b)
Intend by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or be
reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered.

The
House
of Lords was mainly concerned with the extent to which self-induced drunkenness could be a defence to offences of
specific intent and basic intent (see intention), the latter would encompass
recklessness. The Lords ultimately ruled that self-induced intoxication could
be a defence to specific intent, but not to basic intent, i.e. recklessness.
Although the discussion of recklessness tends to be largely obiter
dicta, Lord Dip lock’s discussion contains what was intended as a model
direction, namely that a defendant is reckless when:

(1)
he does an act
which in fact creates an obvious risk that property will be destroyed or
damaged; and

(2)
when he does the
act he either has not given any thought to the possibility of there being any
such risk or has recognized that there was some risk involved and has
nonetheless gone on to do it

To
that extent, the test is one of obviousness, i.e. if it would have been obvious
to the reasonable person, the defendant will be taken to have foreseen it. But
the focus of this test is the nature of the defendant’s conduct rather than his
mental state and it became the subject of major criticism. For example, how was
the direction to apply to the defendant who had considered the risk and only
continued to act after deciding (wrongly as it would later appear) that no risk
existed? In Elliot v C (a minor) (1983) 2 AER 1005, a 14-year-old schoolgirl of
low intelligence, who was tired and hungry, inadvertently burned down a garden
shed. It was accepted that she did not foresee the risk of fire, and that she
had not considered the possible consequences of her action but the court
reluctantly followed Caldwell.

death by dangerous driving for the
statutory version of a test of obviousness). In the continuing judicial debate,
Lord Keith observed in R v Reid (1992) 3 AER 673 (a reckless driving case, that
an absence of something from a person’s state of mind is as much part of his or
her state of mind as is its presence. Inadvertence to risk is no less a
subjective state of mind than is disregard of a recognized risk. Lord Keith
stressed that Lord Diplock qualified the model direction as “an
appropriate instruction” only, seeking to introduce different standards
for different offences. It was further argued that the model direction breached
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
in cases involving a minor or other person’s of reduced capacity.

The
requirement is that “everyone is entitled to a fair and public
hearing”. But, to judge the moral and legal culpability
of a child by reference to the understanding and life experience of an adult is
irrational and, therefore, unfair. In effect, it imposes strict
liability. However, Z and others v United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR
characterizes Article 6 as procedural rather than substantive. It is also to be
noted that after much criticism, the decision in R v Caldwell (1981) was
overruled by the House of Lords in the case of R v G (2003).Caldwell-style
reckless (an objective test) was phased out after the case of R v G (see
below), which introduced a form of subjective recklessness to cases involving
criminal damage. The majority of mens rea of recklessness is now ‘tested’ using
the Cunningham test.

Two boys, aged 11 and 12 years, were camping without their parents’
permission when they entered the back yard of a shop in the early hours of the
morning, lighting some newspapers which they had found in the yard, they left,
with the papers still burning. The newspapers set fire to nearby rubbish bins
standing against the shop wall, where it spread up the wall and on to the roof
of the shop. Approximately £1m damage was caused. The children argued they
expected the fire to burn it out and said they gave no thought to the risk of
it spreading. When their appeal reached the House of Lords, Lord Bingham saw
the need to modify Lord Diplock’s definition to take account of the defence of infancy which contains the concept of
“mischievous discretion”. This rule requires the court to consider
the extent to which children of eight or more years are able to understand the
difference between “right” and “wrong”. The Diplock test of
obviousness might operate unfairly for 11- and 12-year-old boys if they were
held to the same standard as reasonable adults. Bingham stated that a person
acts ‘recklessly’ with respect to:

(i)  
a circumstance
when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist;

(ii)
a result when he
is aware of a risk that it will occur; and it is, in the circumstances known to
him, unreasonable to take the risk.”

This
brings the test back to a subjective standard so that defendants can be judged
on the basis of their age, experience and understanding rather than on the
standard of a hypothetical reasonable person who might have better knowledge
and understanding. Nevertheless,

R v G and another [2003] 1 Cr App R 21

The
test remains hybrid because the credibility of the accused’s denial of
knowledge and understanding will always be judged against an objective standard
of what you would expect a person of the same general age and abilities as the
accused to have known.

In
Booth v Crown Prosecution Service (2006) All ER (D) 225 (Jan), the Divisional
Court upheld the defendant pedestrian’s conviction on a charge under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 that, by rashly
dashing into the road, he recklessly damaged the vehicle that hit him. This
result must be correct if a pedestrian does actually consider the possibility
of damage any vehicle that might become involved in an accident, but it seems
more likely that, if the defendant stopped to consider any risks at all, it
would surely have been confined to the risk of his own injury.

Criminal negligence:

In
the criminal
law, criminal negligence is one of the three general classes of mens rea (Latin for
“guilty mind”) element required to constitute a conventional as
opposed to strict liability offence. It is defined as:

Careless,
inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or in the case of gross
negligence what would have been reckless in any other defendant.

Discussion:

To
constitute a crime,
there must be an actus reus (Latin for “guilty act”)
accompanied by the mens rea (see concurrence).
Negligence shows the least level of culpability,
intention being the most serious and
recklessness of intermediate seriousness, overlapping with gross negligence.
The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the
presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences.
Recklessness is usually described as a ‘malfeasance’ where the defendant
knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being
willing to run the risk.

But
criminal negligence is a ‘misfeasance or ‘nonfeasance’ (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure
to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases
this failure can rise to the level of willful blindness where the individual
intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation (note that in the United
States, there may sometimes be a slightly different interpretation for willful
blindness). The degree of culpability is determined by applying a reasonable
person standard. Criminal negligence becomes “gross” when the
failure to foresee involves a “wanton disregard for human life” (see
the discussion in corporate manslaughter).

The
test of any mens rea element is always based on an assessment of whether the
accused had foresight of the prohibited consequences and desired to cause those
consequences to occur. The three types of test are:

Subjective
where the court
attempts to establish what the accused was actually thinking at the time the
actus reus was caused;

Objective
where the court imputes mens rea elements on the basis that a reasonable
person with the same general knowledge and abilities as the accused would
have had those elements; or hybrid, i.e. the test is both subjective and
objective.

The
most culpable mens rea elements will have both foresight and desire on a
subjective basis. Negligence arises when, on a subjective test, an accused has
not actually foreseen the potentially adverse consequences to the planned
actions, and has gone ahead, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim
to the risk of suffering injury or loss. The accused is a social danger because
he or she has endangered the safety of others in circumstances where the
reasonable person would have foreseen the injury and taken preventive measures.
Hence, the test is hybrid.

Examples of criminally negligent crimes are criminally
negligent homicide
and negligent endangerment of a child. Usually the punishment
for criminal negligence, criminal recklessness, criminal endangerment, willful
blindness and other related crimes is imprisonment,
unless the criminal is insane (and then in some cases the sentence
is indeterminate).

Ignorantia juris non excusat:

Ignorantia
juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for “ignorance of
the law does not
excuse” or “ignorance of the law excuses no one”) is a public policy holding that a person who is
unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she
was unaware of its content; that is, persons have presumed knowledge of the
law.

Explanation:

The
rationale behind the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, persons
charged with criminal offenses or the subject of civil lawsuits would
merely claim they were unaware of the law in question to avoid liability,
whether criminal or civil. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within
the jurisdiction
no matter how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for someone
with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every
aspect of a state’s activities, this is the price paid to ensure
that willful blindness cannot become the basis of exculpation.
Thus, it is well settled that persons engaged in any undertakings outside what
is common for a normal person, such as running a nuclear power plant, will make themselves aware
of the laws necessary to engage in that undertaking. If they do not, they
cannot complain if they incur liability.

The
doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly published and
distributed, for example, by being printed in a government gazette, made
available over the internet, or printed in volumes available for sale to the
public at affordable prices.

In
the Criminal
Law, although ignorance may not clear a defendant of guilt, it can be a
consideration in sentence, particularly where the law is unclear or
the defendant sought advice from law enforcement or regulatory officials. For
example, in one Canadian
case, a person was charged with being in possession of gambling
devices after they had been advised by customs officials
that it was legal to import such devices into Canada. Although the defendant
was convicted, the sentence was an absolute discharge.

In
addition, there were, particularly in the days before satellite
communication and cellular phones, persons who could genuinely be
ignorant of the law due to distance or isolation. For example, in a case in British
Columbia, pair of hunters was acquitted of
game offenses where the law was changed during the period of time they were in
the wilderness hunting. In reaching this decision, the court refused to follow
an early English
law case in which a seaman on a clipper before
the invention of radio was convicted even though the
law had been changed while he was at sea (Bailey (1800) Russ & Ry 1).

Multiple Approaches to Criminal
Behavior:

All
theories of criminal behavior try to address the question of why people commit
crime on the assumption that such a course of action is inexplicable therefore
criminals are somehow different from the rest of us, and that there might be a
single cause of criminal behavior. Most psychological researches tell us that
our behavior is a complex interaction between genetic, environmental, social
and cultural factors.

Different Theories of Criminal
Behavior

The Theory of Cesaro Lomborso:

The
first attempt to understand the personality of offenders in physical terms was
made by Lomborso of the Italian school of criminological thought who is
regarded as the originator of modern criminology. He was the first employ
scientific methods in explaining criminal behavior and shifted the emphasis
from crime to criminal. The classified criminals into three main categories:-

The
Atavists or hereditary criminals.—He also termed them as born-criminals. In his
opinion born-criminals were of a distinct type who could not refrain from
indulging in criminality and environment had no relevance whatsoever to the
crimes committed by the Atavist.

Insane
criminals.—the second category of criminals according to him congested of
insane criminals who resorted to criminality on account certain mental
depravity or disorder.

Criminoids.—the
Third category of criminals according to him was those of criminoids who were
physical criminal type and had a tendency to commit crime to overcome their
inferiority in order to meet the needs of survival.

He
was the first criminologist who made an attempt to understand the personality
of offenders in physical terms. He employed scientific methods in explaining
criminal behavior and shifted the emphasis from crime to criminality. His
theory was that criminals were different physically from normal persons and
possessed few physical characteristics of inferior animal world.

The Theory of Enrico Ferri:

Enrico
Ferri was a chief exponent of the positive school of criminology. He challenged
Lombrosian view of criminality. Through his scholarly researches he proved that
may are biological reasons were not enough to account for criminality. He
believed that emotional reaction, social infirmity or geographical conditions
also play a vital role in determining criminal tendencies in man. He emphasized
that criminal behavior is an out come of a variety of factors having their
combined effect on the individual. According to him social change, which is
inevitable in a dynamic society, result in disharmony, conflict and cultural
variation. As a result of this, social disorganization takes place and
traditional patterns of social control mechanism totally break down. In the
weak of such rapid social changes, the incident of crime is bound to increase
tremendously. The heterogeneity of social conditions destroys the congenial
relationship, creating a social vacuum which proves to be a fertile ground for
criminality.

The Theory of Gabriel Tarde:

Gabriel
de Tarde, the eminent French criminologist and social psychologist, he was a
critic of positive school of criminology. He asserted that influence of social
environment was most emphatic on the criminal behavior and the biological and
physical factors one had a casual effect on it. He pointed out that law of
insertion and imitation was responsible for the incidence of crime the members
of society are prone to imitate the behavior of their associates. Likewise, the
subordinate or inferior members have a tendency to imitate the ways of their
superiors. Consequently, as regards crimes, the beginners have a tendency to
imitate the acts of habitual criminals and thus they lend into criminality. The
effect of imitation is still worse on youngersters who are prone to fall on
easy prey to criminality. Particularly, the impact of move and cinema and
television is so great on teenagers that it perverts their thoughts and actions
which eventually make them delinquents. Thus there is considerable truth in
Trade’s assertion that, “crime like other social phenomenon starts as a fashion
and becomes a custom.” He critised Lombroso’s
anthrometric measurements on which he formulated his theory of criminal
behavior, and offered a social explanation of crime. He asserted that criminal
behavior is the result of a learning process, therefore, any speculation
regarding direct relationship between physical appearance and criminal
propensities of criminals would mean overlooking the real causes of
criminality. He also denounced the proposition of phrenologists who tried to
establish a correlation between the skull, the brain and the social behavior of
a person.

Biological and Psychological Perspectives

Biological Factors and criminality:

Biological
differences in human personality also account for criminality in human beings.
The logic behind biological explanation of crime is that structure determines
function and persons behave differently owing to the fact that they are somehow
structurally different. The physical and biological abnormalities are generally
responsible for criminal behavior. Boi-criminalogy investigates the physical
aspects of psychological disorders. It has been known for some time that adults
who suffer from depression show abnormalities in brain waves during sleep,
experience disturbed nervous system functioning and display biochemical
abnormalities. Research on depress children revels the same physical problems
and furthermore, their adult relatives show high rates of depression as well.
In fact, children whose parents suffer from depression are more then four times
more likely then the average child to experience a similar illness. It thus
appears that depression in an inherited condition that manifests itself in
psychological and physical disturbances. They investigate the biological
correlates of criminality, including a genetic predisposition to commit crime.
The XYY symptom through now generally discounted as of criminality suggest that
aggressive and violent behavior may be at least partly determined by genetic
factors.

Genetic and Environmental Influences
on Criminal Behavior

Criminal
behavior has always been a focus for psychologists due to the age old debate
between nature and nurture. Is it the responsibility of an individual’s genetic
makeup that makes them a criminal or is it the environment in which they are
raised that determines their outcome? Research has been conducted regarding
this debate which has resulted in a conclusion that both genes and environment
do play a role in the criminality of an individual. This evidence has been
generated from a number of twin, family, and adoption studies as well as
laboratory experiments. Furthermore, the research has stated that it is more
often an interaction between genes and the environment that predicts criminal
behavior. Having a genetic predisposition for criminal behavior does not
determine the actions of an individual, but if they are exposed to the right
environment, then their chances are greater for engaging in criminal or
anti-social behavior.

There
is a vast amount of evidence that shows our criminal justice system is the new
home for individuals with psychological problems. Although this may seem like a
solution to some, it is creating a dilemma for our society. Once we label these
individuals as criminals it creates a stigma for those who may suffer from
psychological problems. Certain psychological problems have been shown to be
heritable and if given the right circumstances, individuals with those genes
could find themselves engaging in criminal activity. Therefore, should society
look towards limiting the reproductive capabilities of individuals who suffer
from certain psychological problems to better society?

That
same question was asked back in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries when the role of genetics in crime was widely accepted (Joseph,
2001). Prominent researchers believed that genes were fully responsible for
criminal activity and that criminals could be identified by their physiological
features. Along with this information and the idea of a eugenics movement
during the same time period, it was not surprising to learn that acts of
sterilization took place to rid society of “criminals, idiots, imbeciles, and
rapists” (Joseph, 2001, p. 182). This period was therefore marked with
inhumane treatment and the belief that genes were the sole reason behind criminal
behavior.

Not
long after the practices of controlled breeding, there was evidence to support
the idea that the environment also played an important role in crime. Early
family studies were conducted that showed a predisposition for criminal
behavior as a result of inherited characteristics, but that an individual’s
characteristics and personality could still be modified by the environment
(Joseph, 2001). Although these studies were void of high validity and
reliability, it still raised the question of whether the environment can also
influence individuals to act in a criminal manner. The debate between genetics
and environment continues today with much more reliable research and data.

Twin,
Adoption, and Family Studies:

There
has been great debate between researchers regarding the outcomes of twin,
adoption, and family studies. Some claim that these studies support the notion
of a genetic basis to criminal behavior (Tehrani & Mednick, 2000). On the
other hand, some have concluded that there is not enough evidence from these
twin, family, and adoption studies to profess that genetics do play a role in
antisocial or criminal behavior (Lowenstein, 2003).

Twin
studies are conducted on the basis of comparing monozygotic (MZ) or identical
twins and their rates of criminal behavior with the rates of criminal behavior
of dizygotic (DZ) or fraternal twins. Ordinarily these studies are used to
assess the roles of genetic and environmental influences. If the outcomes of
these twin studies show that there is a higher concordance rate for MZ twins
than for DZ twins in criminal behavior, then it can be assumed that there is a
genetic influence (Tehrani & Mednick, 2000). A study conducted looked at
thirty two MZ twins reared apart, who had been adopted by a non-relative a short
time after birth. The results showed that for both childhood and adult
antisocial behavior, there was a high degree of heritability involved (Joseph,
2001). This study was of particular importance because it examined the factor
of separate environments. Another researcher studied eighty-five MZ and one
hundred and forty-seven DZ pairs and found that there was a higher concordance
rate for the MZ pairs. Ten years later after checking police records of these
same twins, two other researchers concluded that there was a fifty-four percent
heritability of liability to crime (Joseph, 2001). Around the same time of the
study just mentioned, two researchers studied forty-nine MZ and eighty-nine DZ
pairs, but found no difference in the concordance rates. They concluded
therefore that in respect to common crime, hereditary factors are of little
significance (Joseph, 2001). Many other twin studies have been conducted, but
there is concern over the validity of those studies and their ability to
separate out the nature and nurture aspects; therefore other sources of
information should be examined.

Adoption
studies are critical in examining the relationship that exists between adopted
children and both their biological and adoptive parents because they assume to
separate nature and nurture. Studies have been conducted that test for the
criminal behavior of the adopted-away children, if their biological parents had
also been involved with criminal activity. In Iowa, the first adoption study
was conducted that looked at the genetics of criminal behavior. The researchers
found that as compared to the control group, the adopted individuals, which
were born to incarcerated female offenders, had a higher rate of criminal
convictions as adults. Therefore this evidence supports the existence of a
heritable component to antisocial or criminal behavior (Tehrani & Mednick,
2000). Another study in Sweden also showed that if a biological background
existed for criminality, then there was an increased risk of criminal behavior in
the adopted children. In Denmark, one of the largest studies of adopted
children was conducted and found similar results to the previous studies. The
defining feature of the Denmark study was that the researchers found a
biological component for criminal acts against property, but not for violent
crimes (Joseph, 2001). Children whose biological fathers had been convicted of
property crimes were more likely to engage in similar behavior, when compared
to those biological fathers who had been convicted of violent crimes. According
to an article by Jay Joseph (2001), who studied all of the minor and major
adoption studies, the majority of researchers have found and agreed upon the
non-significance of genes in violent crime. This reestablishes the findings
from the studies mentioned already in that there may be a genetic component to
antisocial behavior or that genes influence criminal behavior, but specifically
for property offenses.

Family
studies are the third type of instrument used to assess the relationship between
genetics and environmental influences on criminal or antisocial behavior.
Research in this field has probably been the least accepted by psychologists
and other scholars because of the degree of difficulty in separating out nature
and nurture in the family environment. Children experience both the influence
of their parents’ genes and also the environment in which they are raised, so
it is difficult to assign which behaviors were influenced by the two factors.
Twin studies have this flaw, as stated earlier, but it is more prevalent in
family studies. An additional concern with family studies is the inability to
replicate the results, therefore leading to a small number of studies.
Regardless of these drawbacks, one family study in particular should be
acknowledged for its findings.

Brunner,
Nelen, Breakefield, Ropers, and van Oost (1993) conducted a study utilizing a
large Dutch family. In their study they found a point mutation in the
structural gene for monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), a neurochemical in the brain,
which they associated with aggressive criminal behavior among a number of males
in that family (Alper, 1995). These males were reported to have selective MAOA
deficiency, which can lead to decreased concentrations of
5-hydroxyindole-3-acetic acid (5-HIAA) in cerebrospinal fluid. Evidence
suggests that low concentrations of 5-HIAA can be associated with impulsive
aggression. These results have not been confirmed in any additional family
studies, which lead to a need for more studies to determine if other families
share similar results (Brunner et al., 1993). However, this one family study
does seem to suggest that genetics play an important role in antisocial or
criminal behavior.

Bio-criminologist
most recent and perhaps most impotent discover in the relation of criminal
behavior to biochemical factors (food allergies, hormonal imbalances) and
neurophysiologic factor.

Food allergies:

Investigators
have identified the following food components that may result in severe
allergies reactions:

·
PhenylethylamineTyramine(found
in aged cheese and wine)

·
Monosodium
glutamate(used as a flavor enhancer in many foods)

·
Aspartame(found
in artificial sweeteners)

·
Xanthines(found
in caffeine)

Each
of these food components has been associated with behavioral disorders,
including criminality.

Hormonal Imbalances:

Bio-chemical
researches have tried to show that hormonal imbalances have an adverse effect
on criminality. In other words, hormonal imbalances affect the thinking power
of the brain and control over nervous system and this may lead to criminality.
But the general consensus does not except this findings. The more accepted view
is that hormonal imbalance may that as catalyst for criminal behavior and
provide favorable biological environment for crime causation but criminality
can not be attribute to this imbalances alone.

Neurophysiological factors:

EEG abnormalities:

The
electroencephalogram (EEG) is a tracing made by an instrument that measures
cerebral functioning by recording by rerecording brain wave activity with
electrodes that are placed on the scalp. Numerous studies that have examined
the brain activity of violent prisoners reveal significant difference between
the EEGs of criminals and those of noncriminal.

Minimal brain dysfunction:

Minimal
brain dysfunction (MBD) is classifies as “attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder” MBD produces such asocial behavioral patterns as impulsivity,
hyperactivity, aggressiveness. Low self-esteem, and temper outbursts. The
syndrome is noteworthy for at least two reasons. First, MBD makes explain
criminality when social theories fail to do so, that is, when neighborhood,
peer and familiar associations do not suggest a high risk of delinquency.
Second MBD is a easily overlooked diagnosis. Parents, teachers and clinicians
tend to focus more on the symptoms of a Childs psychopathology then on the
possibility of brain dysfunction.

Psychology and Criminality:

The
Psychoanalytic theory of criminality attributes delinquent and criminal
behavior to conscience that is either so overbearing that it arouses feelings
of guilty or so weak that it can not control the individuals impulses and to a
need for immediate gratification. Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis,
suggested that criminality may result from an overactive conscience that
results in excessive guilty feelings. In treating patients he noticed that
those who were suffering from unbearable guilty committed crimes in order to be
apprehended and punished. The psychoanalytic approach is still one of the most
prominent explanations for both normal and a social functioning. Three basic
principles still appeal to psychologists who study criminality:

The
actions and behavior of an adult are understood in terms of childhood
development.

Behavior
and unconscious motives are intertwined, and their action must be unraveled if
we are to understand criminality.

Criminality
is essential a representation of psychological conflict