Brain basis for crime?

February 28, 2011 By Evan Lerner

Adrian Raine, a Penn Integrates Knowledge professor in the Departments of Criminology, Psychiatry and Psychology, presented a collection of his work on neurocriminology that broadly attempts to connect criminal, psychopathic and aggressive behavior to physical characteristics of the brain at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. earlier this month.

Raine’s talk was part of a panel titled “Nature, Nurture, and Antisocial Behavior: Biological and Biosocial Research on Crime.” His research indicates that psychopaths who are criminal offenders lacking fear, remorse and guilt may show neurological evidence of their differences early in life.

In his most ambitious project, Raine and his colleagues measured autonomic fear conditioning—where the anticipation of a punishment causes an involuntary physical response that can be measured on the skin—in 1,800 children. They then searched for their subjects’ court records 20 years later. After controlling for social factors, they found that poor fear conditioning in 3-year-olds increased their odds of becoming a criminal offender by the age of 23.

Structural impairments in the also appear to be in place early in life in offenders. Adults with cavum septum pellucidum—a neurological condition that reflects underdevelopment of the emotion limbic system before the first six months of life—have higher rates of psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, arrests and convictions.

Raine and his colleagues have demonstrated that adult psychopaths have an amygdala that is 18 percent smaller in size compared to normal controls. The amygdala is part of the brain’s limbic system that is critical for emotion, especially for fear conditioning.
Psychopaths also showed lower activity in the amygdala when confronted with moral dilemmas as compared to controls. Raine says this suggests that, “psychopaths know right from wrong, but they do not have the feeling of what is right and what is wrong.”

But, Raine says, not all offenders are the same. In a study of spouse abusers, Raine and colleagues demonstrated that when presented with emotionally provocative stimuli, wife abusers showed greater activity in the amygdala, an area that helps generate emotions, and less activity in the prefrontal cortex, which helps regulate emotions, as compared to non-abusers. This suggests that rather than using violence at home in a planned, conscious way to control their spouses, some abusers instead over-react to mildly provocative stimuli with hair-trigger tempers that are partly predicated on brain-based emotional over-reactivity and reduced ability to regulate that emotion.

Raine’s ongoing research, conducted with William Laufer, professor of legal studies and business ethics, sociology, and in the Wharton School, is probing the brains of white-collar criminals. Presenting the findings of a pilot study, Raine says these offenders show better decision-making and increased attention. They also show an enlargement in areas of the brain responsible for social information processing, emotion regulation, and the monitoring of abstract rewards like money, as compared to carefully matched controls. Raine cautions that this work is very provisional and must be treated with appropriate circumspection.

While neurocriminology has come a long way from the days of measuring murderers’ skull circumferences, it still raises fundamental questions about how justice systems should operate. As Raine puts it: “If offenders have brain dysfunction for reasons beyond their control, should they be held fully responsible for their crimes?”

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Rat brain atlas provides MR images for stereotaxic surgery

October 21, 2016

Boris Odintsov, senior research scientist at the Biomedical Imaging Center at the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, and Thomas Brozoski, research professor ...

ALS study reveals role of RNA-binding proteins

October 20, 2016

Although only 10 percent of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) cases are hereditary, a significant number of them are caused by mutations that affect proteins that bind RNA, a type of genetic material. University of California ...

Imaging technique maps serotonin activity in living brains

October 20, 2016

Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that's partly responsible for feelings of happiness and for mood regulation in humans. This makes it a common target for antidepressants, which block serotonin from being reabsorbed by neurons ...

Overcoming egocentricity increases self-control

October 19, 2016

Neurobiological models of self-control usually focus on brain mechanisms involved in impulse control and emotion regulation. Recent research at the University of Zurich shows that the mechanism for overcoming egocentricity ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Mar 01, 2011
This pure plagiarism. :)
"The limbic system perceives danger, it prepares the body for the fight/flight response and the neocortex takes this up afterwards due to a complicated interpretative analyses of facial expression (the limbic system has control over that), body stance, muscle tension, heart rate, respiration,hormone levels and lastly visual and auditory clues.
In most cases where immediate action is deemed necessary by the limbic system it performs the required action, leaving the neocortex to figure out why the body landed a blow in someones face.
This gives rise to the thesis that ‘our’ consciousness is just along for the ride. Although ‘we’ can plan and act accordingly, when it comes to real-time environmental interaction its our other consciousness which calls the shots.
This has far reaching consequences for the premise of ‘free will’. Who has the free will, which consciousness we hold accountable.

Wrote this on my wordpress blog: Petrossa
not rated yet Mar 01, 2011
not rated yet Mar 05, 2011
But what causes the "underdevelopment" of the amygdala? Is it prenatal factors? Is it heritable? Is it part of the natural variation in the species?

Fight/flight response is hardwired. As has been said many times before, if we had to reason our way through decisions that require immediate response, survival would be impacted.

While this does raise questions in terms of crime and punishment, it bears repeating that the author stated that impaired individuals still know the difference between right and wrong -they just don't weight their decision based on those values, at least so far as current findings go. Still, there has to be some method of preventing such individuals from committing more offenses -whether that be violent or passive, "white collar" crime.

I think that the question of free will is related, but not essential to this problem, again -based on current findings.

not rated yet Mar 05, 2011
In my view that's the whole underlying issue with judgment. It's based on the fallacy that if you know right from wrong you are free to make a choice.

Which is just not true. People continuously the do things knowing it's wrong. Take smoking. By now everyone should be/is aware that it is a serious health hazard. They know it's wrong but their brains won't let them quit. So they make up excuses to justify behavior they themselves see as wrong.

Crime is no different in some cases. The primary control system makes the body do things which YOU know is wrong but you do it anyway because it's beyond your control.

I go out on a limb here and state that there's not a sole person who has not acted out of anger knowing normally it's wrong. From lashing out to verbal abuse.

not rated yet Mar 05, 2011
Take smoking. By now everyone should be/is aware that it is a serious health hazard. They know it's wrong but their brains won't let them quit. So they make up excuses to justify behavior they themselves see as wrong.
You are plain wrong by assuming that exposing oneself to a serious health hazard is plain wrong anywhere and anytime.
There are lots of situations - as well real as potential - where the "serious health hazard" is just the lesser evil. So people in these situations are doing nothing wrong.
Need I cite an example?
5 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2011
If you feel like it. I just don't see what it has to do with the subject at hand. Going down the path of unraveling an analogy never lead anywhere but fruitless oneupmanship debates.

The issue is:
The idea is not you NEVER have a choice, the point is you can't be sure you HAD a choice.

As such to judge someones actions based on the premise that knowledge of right and wrong automatically implies freedom of choice is just not realistic given how the brain works.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.