The genetic component is frequently invoked in contemporary controversies, not the least of which is the genetic predisposition to homosexuality. The proponents of this determinism claim that the human being is governed by his genes from the moment of birth, and by extension, the possibilities of changing problematic behaviors are not guaranteed. But the latest research, including that of behavioral scientist Terry Moffett, shows that even if we are born with genes that lead to these behaviors, the amount of early interference from the environment plays a huge role in reversing the course.

Our positions on crime and punishment are largely political, and are often related to the extent of our faith if the circumstances surrounding so-and-so's life are to be taken into account when deciding whether his punishment is commensurate with the crime he committed. But criminal justice is not a domain without evidence, and behavioral scientist Terry Moffitt, from King's College London, has spent her career trying to expose the biological and environmental roots of criminal behavior, and she now has evidence from brain scans and genetics that supports her idea that there are two categories of Persons, in general, commit crimes, and each one has different causes for its behavior and different possibilities for reform.

  • News Scientist: How did the upbringing and nature debate influence opinions about criminal behavior? 

Terry Moffett: Our thinking about the roots of antisocial behavior traces a wobbling compass between nature and socializing as a cornerstone. In his writings in the seventeenth century, the philosopher John Locke emphasized the role of education, arguing that we are born with white papers and acquire all our behaviors, even bad ones. Whereas in the nineteenth century, Cesare Lombroso, the founder of criminology, pointed out that corrupt people are born like this, and that they can be distinguished by the shape of the eyes, ears, teeth and eyebrows. By the 1960s, John Watson and B. F. Skinner, the science of behavior, the compass is back in terms of upbringing. Then everything changed in the 1980s and 1990s, and discussions really raged, as scholars began writing about studies in crime based on records of thousands of twins and adopters from Scandinavia, which apparently indicated genetic inheritance of criminal behavior from parents to children, and that was like pouring oil On the fire that transformed the discussion of nurture and nature into a muddy one. But those studies also showed that half of the indications of anti-social and criminal behavior could not be explained solely by genes, and they provided really coherent evidence for the transmission of criminal behavior socially within families. Since then, nearly everyone has come to a consensus that crime involves both nature and nurture.

  • New Scientist: But you thought you were missing out. Can you explain what it is? 

In the early 1990s, criminologists knew that anti-social behavior of males is concentrated in the teenage years, so when the study of crime is designed according to the age group, you will get a curve that peaks between the ages of 16-20, and then decreases in the third and fourth decades, and they also knew That a group of less than 10% of males commit more than 50% of crimes.

In 1993, I published the hypothesis that the peak crime curve hides two different groups that have different causes for criminal behavior, and one of them is called a group of "perpetual aggressors throughout their lives." These people usually exhibit extreme, often antisocial behavior that begins in the early childhood years. And it continues until adulthood. I thought that they would be in the minority, at less than 10%, and that biological factors, if added to a bad childhood, would play a large role in their condition. The other group, which I called "teenage perverts only," shows a similar level of antisocial behavior at the age of 18 but they leave it. I noted that biology is not an element in this group's narrative, and I speculated that they are so pervasive that offensive adolescents are rare.

  • News Scientist: How do you test an idea like this?

You have to track people for years in order to consistently identify criminals and teenage criminals, precisely from cradle days to their 50s, and measure antisocial behavior throughout that entire period. And we were able to do it in the "Dunedin Group Study", which tracked 1,000 New Zealanders from birth in 1972 and 1973 who are now in their late forties. In recent years, we have used brain scans and new "whole genome analysis" techniques to deepen consideration of the biology of crime.

  • News Scientist: What did you find out from the brain studies? 

When we scanned the brains of the members of the Dunedin study participants last year, it became clear that most of those abusers do not have out-of-the-ordinary brains, but the people whose antisocial behavior began in school and continued with them into their teenage years, i.e. the group of persistent aggression, showed less gray matter in some areas of the hippocampus. That was previously linked to anti-social behavior for its role in directing purposeful behavior and regulating emotions and motivation.

  • New Scientist: Are you saying that these people are born with different brains? 

It is difficult to say; If we had conducted these surveys when they were young children, we would be able to tell which anomalies in brain structure existed before the life of crime, but the technology was not available at the time. But recently brain scans of children with cruel or emotionless behaviors, that is, those children who hurt other children without apparent regret, have revealed brain abnormalities similar to those we find. So it is possible that abnormalities of this kind in the structure of the brain were already present. Most of the perpetual aggressors in our study also had a bad childhood that may have tampered with the development of the brain, and this distorts the picture.

  • News Scientist: What did you discover about genetics and crime? 

Over the past decade, new technologies have emerged that enable us to simultaneously look at thousands of genetic variants across a person’s entire genome, and to link genetic markers to specific behaviors. It's hard to do it right in the case of a crime, because you need samples from hundreds of thousands of people that you can divide into persistent teen aggressors. You simply cannot ask people about their behaviors at the beginning of a life of indiscretion since memory is treacherous, and there are no long-term studies that track this number of people.

So we have resorted to other criteria, such as school achievement that can be related to crime and which most people can report when registering for services like "23 & Me" and "Ancestry.com". We used this type of anonymous genome data to create what is called a "legacy score" in school achievement, which summarizes the amount of recognized genetic markers to predict someone's educational success. In the Dunedin study, we found that people who exhibit antisocial behaviors that begin in childhood and continue through the teenage years have a low "inheritance score". But as the brain scans study showed, those perpetual aggressors had bad childhoods as well.

  • News Scientist: Can genes of this type influence criminal behavior? 

Most people who have a low inheritance score in academic achievement experience self-control throughout their lives. We have also shown that they start speaking at a later age than childhood, and they are not very successful in using the language, and they have difficulty learning to read, and they have problems concentrating and controlling their thoughts, and it is difficult for them to remember facts and figures, so they find school a truly frustrating and humiliating place and leave it. as soon as possible. If they need the qualifications when looking for work, crime can be their ideal choice, and if they excel in crime, this brings about greater self-esteem than that which school brings.

  • News Scientist: Has the life of crime been written on some? 

No, people are fine as long as they have a loving family that provides them with warm, sensitive, and reassuring care, a lot of constant and compassionate discipline, in addition to the resources needed for the child's development such as useful food and encouragement at school. But few wonderful childhoods, deprivation, abuse and neglect all allow children's vulnerabilities to turn into antisocial and criminal behavior. And societies don't put as much effort into rehabilitation programs as they do for prisons.

  • New Scientist: If so few people are biologically predisposed to antisocial behavior, why is teen misdemeanor so common? 

Adolescence is a difficult age; Many teens feel they have to prove to themselves and other children that they are not young anymore, and what better way to do that than to commit a few reckless crimes? But most people don't really like living on the margins all the time, and once adolescence turns into maturity the glamor of an escapade lifestyle fades. For young people with warm family relationships, good school grades, and a clear mind before their teens, it is fairly easy to wake up and stay away from attacks if they manage to avoid the criminal record legally.

  • News Scientist: How do you explain a few teens' reluctance to revolt? 

I used to think that crime is so natural that there must be something abnormal in the teenagers who display it, something that separates them from other boys of their age, maybe they are unpopular, or very shy, or very anxious, or they belong to very strict religious societies . Here, my thoughts did not stand the test of time for long, as these factors are not present in many who are reluctant to commit crimes, and I seriously believe that I have underestimated the extent to which happy, healthy, and lovable young people are reluctant to break the law. In the past, it seems that people who are shy were more likely to be social outcasts, but the youth culture has somehow changed.

  • News Scientist: Have your ideas embraced the criminal justice system?

The path is long from the ivory tower to the circles of politics. But my theory has been cited in policy documents, including the 2016 UK Police Modern Crime Prevention Strategy, and several reports sent by the National Research Council of Governments in the United States. In tune with my research, these reports stress the need for a separation between the few aggressors who come from devastating backgrounds and are surrounded by weak speculation and the many who come from ordinary backgrounds and are surrounded by better speculation.

Until 2007, Britain had a policy calling for "all crimes to be prosecuted," which meant that police officers would receive directions to arrest any young offender who had caught their attention and accused nearly all of them in court. Today, police policies have changed radically, and there is a diligence among police officers to keep many young aggressors away from courts and prisons, which helps young people avoid the criminal record, gives them space for good and helps them when applying for jobs. There is only a handful of people who have to feel the brute force of the law, and this message has reached law enforcement.

  • News Scientist: Does that mean we should lock these people up for as long as possible? 

This is the most important question in the whole matter. Right now, that's what is usually happening to keep people safe. But societies have not put enough energy into developing treatments and rehabilitation protocols for permanently antisocial people like we have invested in prisons, and very few things have done in terms of impactful programs. Our work indicates that perpetual criminal behavior begins in the early childhood years, and this age is An occasion to do something about it through procedures in school and home life. Prevention programs are still being worked on, but we are still early.

  • News Scientist: Can science really change the way societies deal with crimes and their perpetrators? 

Policies are determined by more than just a guide. Voters closely monitor police policies, which drives governments to implement punitive or merciful crime policies according to the trends of their electoral base, whether liberal or conservative. But every now and then, the public takes different reactions to major events, which brings change. We see this in the "Black Lives Matter" protests, where discussions about police reform are taking place.

This article is translated from New Scientist and does not necessarily feature Maidan.