Neurocriminology: implications for the punishment, prediction and prevention of criminal behaviour

Abstract

Criminal behaviour and violence are increasingly viewed as worldwide public health problems. A growing body of knowledge shows that criminal behaviour has a neurobiological basis, and this has intensified judicial interest in the potential application of neuroscience to criminal law. It also gives rise to important questions. What are the implications of such application for predicting future criminal behaviour and protecting society? Can it be used to prevent violence? And what are the implications for the way offenders are punished?

Stress and the social brain: behavioural effects and neurobiological mechanisms

“…Such changes are also frequently found in individuals with abnormal social behaviors 84 . In most such individuals frontal regions show reduced functioning.…”

“…In most such individuals frontal regions show reduced functioning. However, amygdala activation by emotional stimuli differs between subgroups of antisocial individuals: it shows hypofunctionality in individuals with psychopathic traits and hyperreactivity in those showing impulsive and reactive social problems 84 . Furthermore, carriers of genetic variants of serotonin-system-related genes that can, through an interaction with stress exposure, increase the development of impulsive aggression (see below), show increased reactivity in the amygdala and reduced reactivity in the emotion regulatory prefrontal regions (orbitofrontal and anterior cingulate cortices) during emotional arousal 117,118 .…”

“…These findings substantiate the view that interactions between conspecifics are governed by homologous brain networks in mammals. Stress is a strong modulator of brain structure and function 5 and most of the brain areas that are particularly vulnerable to stress (such as the amygdala, prefrontal cortex, hippocampus and mesolimbic system) exhibit functional and/or structural alterations in individuals with abnormal social behaviors 84,85 . Inappropriate social behavior that is not due to a brain lesion is usually assumed to be due to altered brain development (which might be caused by stress), impaired social learning (which could also be due to stress) and an inability of the brain to maintain normal structure and function under pressure (including stress) [86][87][88][89] .…”

Forensic practitioners’ expectations and moral views regarding neurobiological interventions in offenders with mental disorders

“…Scientific developments in neurobiology and behavioural genetics give rise to speculations about potential biomedical interventions to prevent, contain, or treat violent and antisocial behaviour (Eichelberger and Barnes, 2015;Fozdar, 2016;Glenn and Raine, 2014;van der Gronde et al, 2014;Lee, 2015;de Ridder et al, 2009;Rocque et al, 2012). These potential developments have stirred considerable ethical debate on the prospects, threats, and limitations of integrating neurobiological and behavioural genetic interventions in forensic psychiatric practices (Chhangur et al, 2015;Horstkö tter, 2015;Hü bner and White, 2016;Munthe and Radovic, 2015;Pustilnik, 2009;Rose, 2000;Rose and Abi-Rached, 2013).…”

“…Preliminary research is underway to determine which biomarkers -genetic, neurobiological, and physiological -might give accurate risk assessments of future violent and antisocial behaviour and which preventive interventions would be effective in reducing those risks (Gaudet et al, 2016;Glenn and Raine, 2014;Glenn et al, 2015;Liu, 2011;van Goozen and Fairchild, 2008;Rocque et al, 2012;Singh et al, 2013;Singh and Rose, 2009). Other uses of biomarkers that are being investigated are biological predictors of inpatient violence, length of stay, and reoffending (Aharoni et al, 2013;Sedgwick et al, 2016).…”