Biosocial criminology as a foundation for rehabilitation and reintegration efforts.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, reducing recidivism is one of the best ways to prevent crime. Over the past 16 years, federal, state, and local governments have implemented a number of promising recidivism programs. State-level reincarceration rates have decreased by 23% since 2008.  Recent efforts in this area include “biosocial criminology,” an area of research focused on the influence of genetic and biological factors on an individual’s criminal and antisocial behaviors. Biosocial criminology considers biological and environmental influences when evaluating a person’s criminogenic needs. A person’s “criminogenic needs” are the characteristics that increase their likelihood of reoffending. Some of the biological influences considered are genetics, brain structure and function, and physiological processes that occur in the human brain.  Biosocial criminology research shows that each incarcerated individual has their own criminogenic factors, including their criminal history, history of substance abuse, education level, and home environment during their developmental years. The environmental influences include the socialization processes external to the human body and brain. Essentially, biosocial criminology hypothesizes that it is not nature versus nurture but, rather, nature and nurture working in tandem to influence one’s likelihood of recidivism.

The integration of biosocial criminology into the criminal legal system began in October 2021 when the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) released a report calling for correctional officials to examine the biology of convicted individuals. Specifically, the NIJ wanted to collect data on an individual’s cortisol levels, heart rate, genes, and brain chemistry with the primary goals of tailoring intervention or rehabilitation efforts to each individual while simultaneously assessing their risk of reoffending. While criminologists are increasingly aligning with the modern movement of biosocial criminology today, many initially rejected it. At the beginning of its emergence, biosocial criminology was an outlet for blatantly racist criminological theories. The main issue was the field's lack of recognition of the complexity of the relationship between biology and criminality. By ignoring that complexity, criminologists placed an exaggerated emphasis on some absolute link between antisocial behavior and a “crime gene,” which they baselessly attributed to people of color or people of lower socioeconomic status. Today, biosocial criminologists are working to sever the field’s ties with these notions. Now, their focus is brain chemistry and formation rather than any “crime gene” or genetic makeup.

Callie Burt, an associate professor at Georgia State University, argues that crime and antisocial behavior are socially constructed and highly variable. She explains that individuals can have an underlying biological propensity that could lead to antisocial behavior, impulsivity, and lack of regard for others This can be applied to violent and non-violent crimes. For example, say an individual who already exhibits signs of antisocial behavior begins facing a financial struggle, such as a sudden series of layoffs at work and is unable to pay their rent. Facing these conditions, the individual’s underlying antisocial traits of impulsivity and lack of societal regard may incline them to rob a cashier for a quicker solution rather than find a new stable job with a salary. If someone with this propensity is then placed in an affluent environment, these antisocial behaviors have an increased chance of flourishing. If a person with a propensity for antisocial behavior went to work on Wall Street, these behaviors could lead them to large paychecks. Moving forward, the field aims to become more specific in explaining the impact biological makeup has on human behavior.

This field has been incorporated into the criminal legal system through the focus on evidence-based rehabilitation strategies. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is reforming its practices to address the core behavioral issues that correlate with engaging in criminal behavior with hopes of reducing the probability of reoffending and reincarceration. One such reform is beginning reentry preparation on the first day of incarceration. If such needs are identified on the first day of incarceration, the BOP can provide the right services to the right inmates and monitor their progress throughout incarceration, decreasing the likelihood of recidivism. Another reform effort is through correctional education programs. Biosocial criminology holds education level as a criminogenic factor. These programs lowered the odds of incarcerated individuals returning to prison by 43% when compared with those who did not participate.

Biosocial criminology has also emphasized the need to evaluate the negative impact that conditions of incarceration have on stress system responses and neuropsychological functioning.

Among the BOP’s reform efforts, prioritizing mental health treatment, helping people maintain familial connections while incarcerated, and reducing the use of solitary confinement are all the result of such evaluations. By addressing the mental state of incarcerated people, the negative impacts of incarceration can be mitigated or made to not be as prominent upon release. As a result, incarcerated people face a much-improved chance of successful reentry to society after their release.

There are a multitude of other incentives found in biosocial criminology, and many call for significant collaboration between practitioners and researchers for their implementation. I believe there are even implications that this science could be used as a basis for preventative programs. For example, one of the main ways antisocial behavior is reduced is through healthy fetal brain development, specifically the prefrontal cortex. The way a mother treats their body during a pregnancy can compromise the normal development of their fetus’s brain, as they can potentially create an inhospitable environment in utero.  A maldeveloped prefrontal cortex gives an individual a diminished ability to anticipate consequences and control impulses, which have both been identified as risk factors for offending and reoffending. Effective prevention programs should focus on educating mothers-to-be that engaging in such activities can be seriously problematic during pregnancy. Soon-to-be fathers should also be educated on how certain actions can affect a developing fetus, as previous research has found that pregnant women exposed to secondhand smoke have offspring who are at risk for behavioral issues.

While preventative programming has not been implemented to the extent that rehabilitative programming has, the downward trend in recidivism lends a hand to establishing the power of biosocial criminology-based rehabilitation.