1

Assignment Seven: Biosocial Criminology & “Three Identical Strangers”

Jasmyn M. Stevens

Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology, Georgia Southern University

CRJU 7631

Dr. Grubb

November 30, 2021

 SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS 2

Assignment Seven: Biosocial Criminology & “Three Identical Strangers”

The film Three Identical Strangers (Wardle, 2018) details the lives of a set of triplets

who were separated at birth in 1961. Given up for adoption by their mother, they were each

taken in by a different family. Robert “Bobby” Shafran, Edward “Eddie” Galland, and David

Kellman lived the first nineteen years of their lives ignorant of their status as triplets. It was only

when Bobby enrolled in college, and was subsequently mistaken for his brother Eddie, that this

mystery began to unravel. The story of Bobby and Eddie finding each other was printed on

countless newspapers and eventually reached David’s doorstep. This miraculous reunion became

national news.

However, this is not simply a heartwarming documentary about family finding one

another. The reason for the triplet’s separation was revealed to be a scientific experiment, one

that examined the effects of nature vs. nurture. Identical twins that were given up for adoption

were separated in order to study the effect of parenting on a child’s development. While this

raised few concerns in the 60s, there are major ethical issues that are easily spotted today. Firstly,

is would not be considered ethical today to separate twins/triplets for the sake of an experiment.

Secondly, putting one child in a house with a more loving parenting style is inherently unfair the

other sibling(s). Thirdly, none of the parents had the choice to opt-out of the study; that option

was not available to them. Additionally, neither the parents nor the children were debriefed on

the experiment.

The biosocial implications in this film fit into this week’s material. After the euphoria of

finding their long-lost brothers wore off, it became evident that even though they were so

similar, there were a great deal of differences between them. As the brothers acknowledge in the

documentary, parenting likely had something to do with it. Eddie, Bobby, and David all
 SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS 3

encountered different environmental influences in their childhoods, which account for many of

the differences amongst the triplets. Chapter 14 discusses these influences in its section on

molecular genetics. Lilly et al. (2018) states that “genetic predisposition[s] toward criminal

activity [are] encouraged or discouraged depend[ing] upon the environment” (p. 687). The

interplay between these two variables is known as the “gene x environment correlation” (Rutter,

2007, p. 687).

Additionally, in the documentary, Peter B. Neubauer’s former research assistant

mentioned that the preliminary findings showed that genetics controlled much more than people

are comfortable with. Even when they tried to control for other factors such as parenting style

and socioeconomic status, some things remained constant among the triplets. It shows that we

are not in as much control as we think we are. The Ellis (2005) article seems to echo this

sentiment, as it lists twelve biological correlates of crime. These correlates have repeatedly

demonstrated a relationship with criminal behavior.

Later in the film, another of Peter B. Neubauer’s former research assistants discussed the

research design of the experiment. One of the goals of the project was to determine the role of

parenting on a child’s future. Before the triplets were adopted, a girl was placed with each family

so they could evaluate the varying methods of child-reading. While by no means ethical, this line

of thought is common in developmental sciences. Rocque et al. (2012) cite various studies that

find a link between parenting and positive child development. Furthermore, they analyze the

Nurse-Family Partnership pioneered by David Olds (Olds et al., 2007). The results of this

partnership found that focusing on early parenting interventions as well as the child’s

neurocognitive skills not only decreased crime (i.e., child neglect) for the parents, but also for the

children later in life.

 SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS 4

Because biosocial research is making a resurgence, it gives us the opportunity to analyze

its strengths and weaknesses more closely. Each set of theories has its own benefits and

drawbacks. Behavioral and molecular genetics evaluate both the environmental genetic risk

factors for criminality. It gives us the “hard facts” that we associate with these sciences (Walsh,

2011). However, this type of research is extremely expensive and usually requires the

participants to be twins or adoptees.

According to Walsh (2011), evolutionary psychology “ties criminology to evolutionary

biology” (p. 141). It argues that mating is the reason that males are more criminal than women

and emphasizes that crime is normal from an evolutionary perspective. Furthermore, it posits that

nature rewards this behavior, which is why it continues to be passed down (Ellis, 2005).

Nevertheless, this is also one of the theory’s weaknesses. Assuming that crime is normal as

opposed to pathological seems to justify its prevalence in cultures around the world; and that

prevalence cannot be accounted for by simply citing evolution (Walsh, 2011).

The neuroscience perspective shows us how various environmental factors become

imprinted on the brain. We can see how different things affect us in the long run, and what that

means for future criminality. One weakness, however, is its price. Neuroimaging technology,

while decreasing in cost, is still very expensive. Additionally, “the ‘hardness’ of the data may

lead us to accept findings too uncritically” (Walsh, 2011, p. 142).

Finally, in accordance with biochemical theory, Lilly et al. (2018) states that

criminological traits are “centered in deficient functioning of various biochemical systems” (p.

692). Walsh (2011) goes on to say that low serotonin is correlated to low self-control, which

could explain why criminality is persistent in offenders. These biochemical underpinnings, while

popular, are difficult to identify. This can make it hard to isolate its effects.
 SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS 5

Biosocial research has finished searching for a “criminal man” and is now branching out

to discover how various factors interact with biology. By not ignoring the reality of biological

importance in encouraging/discouraging crime, we create a more comprehensive discipline. This,

I hope, will allow us to better predict and reduce criminal behavior in the near future.
 SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS 6

References

Ellis, L. (2005). A Theory Explaining Biological Correlates of Criminality. European Journal of

Criminology, 2(3), 287-315.

Lilly, J.R., Cullen, F.T., & Ball, R.A. (2018). Criminological Theory: Context and

Consequences (7th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H., Hanks, C., Cole, R., Anson, E., Sidora-Arcoleo, K., Luckey, D. W.,

Henderson, C. R., Holmberg, J., Tutt, R. A., Stevenson, A. J., & Bondy, J. (2007). Effects

of nurse home visiting on maternal and child functioning: Age-9 follow-up of a

randomized trial. Pediatrics, 120(4), E832-E845. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-2111

Rocque, M., Welsh, B. C., & Raine, A. (2012). Biosocial criminology and modern crime

prevention. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(2012), 306-312.

Rutter, M. (2007). Gene-environment interdependence. Developmental Science, 10(1), 12-18.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00557.x

Walsh, A. (2011). Criminology: The Essentials (1st ed.). SAGE Publications.

Wardle, T. (2018). Three Identical Strangers C. Films & R. TV; Neon.