The rise of biocriminology: Capturing observable bodily economies of ‘criminal man’

Abstract

Revisiting the contributions of numerous foundational biocriminological works, this article uses the concept 'bodily economies' to analyze the emergence and solidification of criminological pathologizations of the bios dependent on the capture and analysis of human corporeal matter. The scholars we discuss (Lombroso, Ellis, Goring, Hooton, and the Gluecks) each causally equate some part of the body with inbuilt criminality. Through an exegesis of their work, we illustrate how the boundaries of the social body are constituted in and through corporeal capturings and classifications of 'criminal man'. Our analysis investigates the biocriminological method of locating sources of criminality inside the body, which still permeates the new 'science of criminals' used as a tool to define and protect the social body. We conclude by discussing the renewed biocriminological interest in preventing criminality through forecasting it in various scientific constructs and visualizations of the inner body.

The Association Between Genetic Risk and Contact With the Criminal Justice System in a Sample of Hispanics

“…Criminologists testing for an association between genetic factors and antisocial behaviors have produced a line of empirical research indicating that genetic predispositions represent key risk factors for crime, delinquency, and other forms of aberrant behavior (Gunter, Vaughn, & Philibert, 2010). As a result, biosocial criminology has begun to gain a significant amount of traction as an important perspective from which to explore the possible causes and correlates to antisocial behaviors (Walby & Carrier, 2010;Walsh & Beaver, 2009;Wright & Boisvert, 2009).…”

The Vindication of Lamarck? Epigenetics at the Intersection of Law and Mental Health

“…These include the following: (1) epigenetic processes such as methylation are normal and universal and typically have little to do with experience, and are under genetic control; (2) methylation is specific to specific tissues, and different targets such as cord blood and saliva have unique epigenetic signatures; (3) it is not known where to look for experience‐based methylation for antisocial behavior, and many chance findings are likely to occur; (4) detection of epigenetic processes and working with epigenetic data have not been sufficiently sorted out to permit adequate comparisons; (5) limited evidence that experience modifies methylation and the link from methylation to gene expression is far from complete; (6) the strongest evidence for epigenetic effects is derived from experiments involving nutrition and chemical exposure, which are far removed from parental or social variables in human samples; (7) deterministic thinking about parenting due to unsubstantiated excitement regarding the putative connection between early experience and biological signatures. In this way, epigenetics research is subject to the same skepticism that also has been applied to neuroscience research (Satel & Lilienfeld, ) and molecular genetics studies by naysayers in criminology (cf., Barnes et al , ; Carrier & Walby, ; Nedelec & Beaver, ; Schwartz & Beaver, ; Walby & Carrier, ).…”

Radicalisation theories, policing practices, and “the future of terrorism?”

“…As the slide indicates, an indicator references only "possible" threats. Much like the criminological infatuation with biological theories of crime have transformed from the crudeness of Lombroso's jug ears to the sophistication of virtual renderings of neuropshysiological structures and processes (see Walby and Carrier 2010), the methodological advancements that privilege risk over causation nonetheless retain an etiological calculation that moves from an absolute causality to a calculus of probabilities.…”