Scientific American Mind Article - Summary and thoughts

From time to time, everyone hears ghastly accounts of vicious murders, horrific abuse, merciless maiming, and other atrocities. The odd thing about these accounts is that the ‘predator’ or ‘afflicting party’ in most of these cases usually does not have a criminal record, nor has he or she committed a crime of any kind before. To answer the resounding question of “why?,” Neuroscientists have done extensive research, bringing forth some interesting conclusions.

In the December 2006 issue of Scientific American Mind, readers got an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the new research findings published in the article “The Violent Brain” by Daniel Strueber, Monika Lueck and Gerhard Roth. It is safe to assume that everyone has heard the gender-specific statements, “girls don’t hit,” and “boys need to be able to defend themselves.” However, not a lot of people automatically link these statements to a probability of higher rates of violence in men than women. “According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's statistics on crime in the U.S., 90.1 percent of murderers apprehended in 2004 were male and men accounted for 82.1 percent of the total number arrested for violent crimes.” The study does not discount women from crimes, however. Women, in turn, “engage in more indirect, covert aggression, whereas men tend toward immediate, outward physical aggression.”

Biologically speaking, there are a few hypotheses regarding the origin, or perhaps the reason for such behavior. One of them is the frontal brain hypothesis, which links anti-social, aggressive behavior to damages in the prefrontal cortex. Some examples include Vietnam War Veterans, and children who underwent frontal brain surgery at a young age. Other research suggests that damage to specific parts of the brain, such as the limbic system, hippocampus, and amygdale may further explain violent behavior. Anatomical comparisons of a test study group at USC lead by Adrian Raine, show that “the volume of gray matter in the prefrontal cortex was 22.3 percent lower among the unsuccessful offenders as compared with the control subjects.”

Another possible explanation is one of biochemical roots – the lack of specific regulatory neurotransmitters. For instance, numerous studies have linked low levels of serotonin, a neurotransmitter responsible for fear in the brain, to reckless, unsociable acts. While bad biochemistry, biological and genetic maladies may seem to increase the risk of violent behavior in males, it should also be noted that a combination of the aforementioned with ‘psychosocial risks’ such as an abusive past, unemployment, lack of proper relationship with parents, would truly be the cause of an explosion resulting in violent crimes.

On the other hand, children who have had abusive backgrounds and such negative influences in their environment have also been able to overcome these circumstances, to lead a healthy life. So now, argument begs the question, “is violent behavior caused by natural or nurtured negative influences?” or in other words, the argument ends at the nature vs. nurture theory/predicament.

I feel that as though, if one leans toward the nature end of the argument, any criminal could easily escape judgment because he or she was genetically predisposed to it. As petty as the argument sounds, it could sadly be accepted. Also, studies have not successfully expressed that damage to the frontal lobe of the brain directly causes violent behavior. Conversely, if one chooses the nurture argument, then what is the explanation for those who have been raised in negative environments, yet still overcame their past?