Genes, Criminal Behavior Linked In University Of Texas Study

What turns people into criminals? In the longstanding debate over nature vs. nurture, new research published in the journal Criminology suggests that genes play a key role in determining who leads a life of crime and who stays on the straight and narrow.

The research, conducted by University of Texas at Dallas criminologist J.C. Barnes and colleagues, analyzed the genetic and environmental influences on criminal traits of 4,000 people. The researchers discovered a strong link between genes and criminality.

The scientists based their research on the 1993 theory of Duke professor Dr. Terrie Moffitt that says people will generally fall into three different types: life-course persistent offenders (lifelong criminals), adolescent-limited offenders (who grow out of their bad behavior), and law-abiding abstainers (non-criminals).

According to the paper:

• For life-course persistent offenders, genes influenced criminal behavior more than the environment.
• For abstainers, it was roughly an equal split: genetic factors played a large role and so too did the environment.
• For adolescent-limited offenders, the environment was the most important factor.

"If we're showing that genes have an overwhelming influence on who gets put onto the life-course persistent pathway, then that would suggest we need to know which genes are involved and, at the same time, how they're interacting with the environment, so we can tailor interventions," Dr. Barnes said.

But don't expect police to start locking people up based on their genomes anytime soon. Researchers say there is no single gene to predict criminality; there are likely to be hundreds, if not thousands of genes that will affect your likelihood of being involved in crime. And even then, it may only increase that likelihood by 1 percent.

But that doesn't mean the genetic link should be taken lightly, Barnes points out.

"Honestly, I hope that when people read this, they take issue and start to debate it and raise criticisms, because that means people are considering it and thinking about it," Barnes said.

Comments

[brahms]

09:06 PM on 02/10/2012

The complex causes of human sexuality are hereditary yes? But the complexities of antisocial behavior are environmental. Houston, I think we have a problem.

[GaryNOVA]

05:01 PM on 01/30/2012

Now the fact that I got robbed by a toddler last week makes way more sense.

[onionboy]

02:55 PM on 01/31/2012

Frackin' toddlers.

[notsotupelohoney]

12:52 PM on 01/30/2012

Crime is relative. I once heard a cop say that speeders are criminals. I think that those profiting from war and the financial problems of others are criminals.

Here's an example of some criminals: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-620626.html

People who smoke marijuana, not criminals.

So how can genes determine criminal activity when what is a crime is disputed?

[Golden rod]

12:49 PM on 01/30/2012

nut

[Ossit]

05:54 AM on 01/30/2012

Criminals are made not born.

[Golden rod]

12:42 PM on 01/30/2012

You must be a conservative.....you say you do not believe in science, even when it hits you in the face.

[Ossit]

03:11 PM on 01/30/2012

I'm Liberal actually. Yes, I do believe in science, and scientifically, criminals are made not born. It's like compassion, empathy and respect, Golden rod. If you're not taught, you have those. You're not born with anything missing. Such a thing as bogus science that promotes bias. This is pretty bias.

[Debbie338]

11:12 AM on 01/29/2012

My genes made me do it--- like obesity and alcoholism. Just enough truth to let people absolve themselves of personal responsibility.

I know, I know...doesn't mean we should discourage research, but it means we have to be careful how we interpret it.

[ILoveGreatDanes]

04:53 PM on 01/29/2012

That's true about all research. Besides, correlation does not equal causation. A link between genes and criminality does not mean a genetic basis causes criminal behavior. It will take more studies and research to reach more definite conclusions. The only way to determine anything scientifically is to do a lot of research, followed by more research, and some whipped research topping.

[Debbie338]

06:47 PM on 01/29/2012

Of course. I'm just a bit tired of all the fat people around me constantly saying it's not their fault that they're fat. I work at eating right and exercising so I won't be, and they're complaining to me about being fat, and how LUCKY I am that I'm not. :-)

[onionboy]

02:55 PM on 01/31/2012

It's all about how we use the information. I have addiction in my genes...no question (I won't bore anyone with my family). That makes me a lot more cautious about drinking and drugs. I can't 'experiment' like other people can. My risks are higher than theirs. So, having the information is valuable because it helps prevent me from becoming a drunk. But I'd be using it incorrectly if I just used as an excuse to become a drunk.

[medic628]

01:32 PM on 01/28/2012

Genes? What are they really saying? This sounds like a justification for the current demographic of our prison system.

[Gmasters]

02:12 PM on 01/29/2012

Well, you did notice that the study originated in Texas didn't you?

What they failed to reveal is how many of the lifelong criminals in the study are related to Texas Politicians. :)

[ILoveGreatDanes]

04:54 PM on 01/29/2012

The Texas cracks are getting really old. Some smart, cool liberal people live in Texas. Me for instance, lol.

[GetAbike]

12:52 PM on 01/28/2012

It is thoughts like this that need correcting- perhaps through genetic therapy-
"And the first thing that flashed into my gulliver was that I'd like to have her right down there on the floor with the old in-out, real savage."

[MaeS]

10:40 AM on 01/28/2012

I am reading the study in full right now. A few interesting things:

1. The largest group, by far, is the adolescent-limited group. Delinquency in adolescence is statistically normative. This means that most people are criminals as young adults.

2. Some risk factors for life-course persistent offending and some protective factors for abstaining appear to be genetic. In other words, some people have problems that can be traced to their genes which make it more likely for them to live a life of crime. Similarly, some people have strengths that can be traced to their genes which make it less likely for them to live a life of crime.

3. They did not look at any actual life-course persistent (LCP) offenders. That is, the oldest participants in this study were young adults who, to be defined as LCP, were currently engaged in criminal activity.

4. How you were raised becomes less important as you age. Home/childhood environment was the only environmental influence really examined. The effects of, say, incarceration were not looked at.

[MaeS]

10:44 AM on 01/28/2012

Oops! In #1 above, I should have said "most people are criminals in their teens."

[abacsik]

11:27 AM on 01/28/2012

#3 makes it sound to me like they just made up conclusion about LCPs since they "did not look at any" real ones. Isn't real science supposed to OBSERVE things in order to make claims about them?????

[MaeS]

03:48 PM on 01/28/2012

Well, yes. It is a serious limitation of the study. Really, they were identifying people at very high risk for LCP.

[Claudia L]

09:54 AM on 01/28/2012

Is there glass in her glasses?

[somewhatodd]

09:37 AM on 01/28/2012

dr barnes probably reached in the pile of previous texas "studies" and just scratched out "race" and penciled in "genes" and shazam, he's a phd.

[MaeS]

11:01 AM on 01/28/2012

I just read the whole study. A big limitation that I can see is that it doesn't take into account the effects of disparate treatment. For example, most teenagers do things that could get them locked up. But the study doesn't look (at all, not part of the data collected) how kids who ARE locked up fare later in life relative to those who are NOT. This seems to me to be a huge oversight, as all the data collected thus far shows that the single biggest risk factor for incarceration is... previous incarceration.

The other big limitation is that the study doesn't look at actual life-course persistent offenders. That is, they don't look at, say, 50 year olds who have in fact spent years at criminal pursuits. They look at young adults (they started with adolescents and went for 6 years, so the oldest person in the study would have been around age 23) who are still committing crimes. So, all the genetic factors could point to nothing more than delayed maturity.

Personally, I think there probably are some genetic components. We know that genetic predisposition exists for things like addiction (which is a cause of criminality). However, I think they are overstating their case here.

[somewhatodd]

12:35 PM on 01/28/2012

the "case" for a genetic cause for criminality is politically, philosophically, and morally indistinguishable from its predecessor, i.e., the purported racial cause for criminality.

there can be no objective racial or genetic cause for "criminality", prima facie, for "criminality" is nothing other than a projected attribute, a judgement applied, one that is actually created or "caused" by politics. a "criminal", just like a "war hero", is a political character, not a biological one. that's why some horrific killers get ticker tape parades while others get the electric chair. whether a person is an "evil mass murderer of the worst kind" or an "abortion provider" depends not at all on that person's genetic make-up, but solely upon our politics.

[somewhatodd]

01:00 PM on 01/28/2012

" We know that genetic predisposi tion exists for things like addiction (which is a cause of criminalit y) "

addiction may cause certain behaviors, but can't cause criminality. whether a given behavior is criminal or not depends entirely on politics. surely the genetics of pot smokers don't vary perfectly according to state lines. however, the criminality of pot smoking does indeed follow state lines, and so much so that one should think that amazing phenomena might catch the collective eye of behavioral science.

[Nathalie80]

08:03 AM on 01/28/2012

Bad DNA! Bad DNA!

[Golden rod]

12:47 PM on 01/30/2012

Well, the nut never falls very far from the tree.

[vars2]

10:15 PM on 01/27/2012

The desire was overwhelmi­ng, she still doesn't know why she did it, but I do. Most criminals are ofter caught saying ... I don't know why I did it. Sure there are other human factors that effect our reality, but they are minor compared to what we bring in with us when were born.

huum§?§?§?

bizar

[vars2]

07:16 PM on 01/27/2012

copwatch france is back =)

[wutrup]

07:05 PM on 01/27/2012

What we have here is: we live in a total self created reality. We are the product of whatever lifetime has the strongest energetic hold on us. We each come in here with innateness, like a child savant that is astute in music, art, science, math etc., way beyond the norm. The criminal element can be tied to genes because we inject our consciousness into our body before we are born, and continue to alter it through our thinking through the rest of our lives. Look at people like Winona Ryder, shoplifting 6000 worth of good when she had big buck to pay for anything she wanted. The desire was overwhelming, she still doesn't know why she did it, but I do. Most criminals are ofter caught saying ... I don't know why I did it. Sure there are other human factors that effect our reality, but they are minor compared to what we bring in with us when were born.