See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235745698

Biosocial criminology and modern crime

prevention

Article in Journal of Criminal Justice · July 2012

DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.05.003

CITATIONS READS

29 2,050

3 authors, including:

Michael Rocque
Bates College
58 PUBLICATIONS 287 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Desistance from crime: New Advances in Theory and Research (Palgrave-MacMillan, 2017) View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Rocque on 28 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue
are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (2012) 306–312

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Criminal Justice

Biosocial criminology and modern crime prevention

Michael Rocque a, b,⁎, Brandon C. Welsh a, c, Adrian Raine d, e, f
a
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA
b
Department of Sociology, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, USA
c
Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1008 BH
d
Department of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
e
Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
f
Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online xxxx Objective: In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, criminological efforts to prevent or reduce crime were
centered on addressing presumed biological causes of crime. Most of these strategies involved calls for eu-
genics—proposals that today are considered unethical and morally reprehensible. Biologically-oriented crim-
inology and crime control policies have re-emerged with new sophistication and attention to the importance
of social context. Additionally, developmental crime prevention, with a special focus on biological/physiological
risk factors in the early life course, has become influential in criminology. This paper examines the relevance of
biology to modern day crime prevention.
Materials and methods: Narrative review of the theoretical and empirical literature of biology and developmental
crime prevention.
Results: There are a growing number of developmental crime prevention programs that address biological risk
factors for delinquency and later criminal offending. These programs are found in the family, school, and com-
munity domains. Evidence suggests that these programs can reduce crime.
Conclusions: While “biological crime prevention” as a separate field has not yet emerged, findings show that
crime prevention programs can and do address biology in a sociologically sensitive manner—and these pro-
grams have shown significant impacts on crime.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction biological/psychological risk factors early in life (see Farrington &

Early criminological work argued that deviant behavior occurred as a
result of biological or mental predispositions, which led to proposals for
crime prevention that involved eugenics (Rafter, 1997; 2008; Vaske,
Galyean, & Cullen, 2011). However, these proposals are no longer accept-
ed or even considered by criminologists, who have been sensitive to the
negative implications of using biology to explain crime. As a result of in-
creased recognition of human rights, biologically-oriented criminology
and crime control policies lost favor in the early to mid-20th century.
To this day, many criminologists remain wary of any theoretical or
policy work that carries the slightest hint of biology. However, crimino-
logical research examining biological factors has re-emerged with
new sophistication and attention to the importance of social context
(Beauchaine et al., 2008; Rafter, 2008; Walsh & Beaver, 2009a;
2009b). Additionally, in recent years, a stronger focus on crime preven-
tion has emerged, with a growing literature on developmental crime
prevention. A large part of this literature is concerned with addressing
⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Northeastern
University, Churchill Hall, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
E-mail address: m.rocque@neu.edu (M. Rocque).
Welsh, 2007; Tremblay & Craig, 1995). Thus, biologically-based crime
prevention (while not currently so labeled) has re-entered the crimino-
logical literature.
In this article, we attempt to show that this new biological crime
prevention is vastly different from the biological strategies of the
past. Far from advocating unethical eugenic measures, this work
focuses on improving the environment to promote healthy biological
development early in life. Thus, in a sense, this crime prevention work
is integrative in recognizing the import of both the environment and
the body. In what follows, we introduce the concept of developmental
crime prevention, and then discuss the biological or psychological
risk factors for offending that developmental prevention programs
may influence.
Crime Prevention in Criminology and Criminal Justice
Crime prevention has a long history in the fields of criminology
and criminal justice. Evaluations of crime prevention programs have
been carried out for decades, especially in the United States (see
Welsh, 2011). With respect to biology, crime prevention efforts in
the late 19th and early 20th centuries involved calls to prevent so-

0047-2352/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.05.003
 M. Rocque et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (2012) 306–312
called inferior peoples from reproducing (Fink, 1962; Rafter 2009).
Eugenics and most other policies seeking to prevent crime by focus-
ing on biological factors lost favor as the 20th century progressed
(Rafter, 1997). However, scholarly interest in the study of more
environmentally-based crime prevention has grown in recent years
(Clarke, 2009). The pioneering work of Ronald Clarke in the 1970s
and early 1980s at the British Home Office helped to establish the
field of situational crime prevention in criminology (Clarke, 2009).
At about the same time, early childhood programs seeking to improve
life-course development began to collect data on delinquency and
antisocial behavior, helping to demonstrate the crime prevention po-
tential of early intervention (Tremblay & Craig, 1995). Other govern-
mental programs focusing on different types of prevention emerged
in the following decades in the U.S. and abroad, along with increased
academic interest (Tonry & Farrington, 1995; Visher & Weisburd,
1997).
The study and use of crime prevention strategies start from the
premise that responding to crime after it happens is a missed oppor-
tunity. A primary prevention approach advocates determining what
facilitates criminal behavior and addressing those factors before
crime occurs. Crime prevention can be viewed through a public health
lens. Here, physicians do not rely on identifying victims of disease
as their only means of treating the illness; instead, they pool their
knowledge on the risk factors known to produce certain diseases
and provide guidance to those at risk in order to avoid illness before
it occurs (Rivara & Farrington, 1995). The type of risk factor then de-
termines the prevention approach that is advocated.
An influential scheme distinguishes four major strategies for
classifying crime prevention programs (Tonry & Farrington, 1995).
Developmental prevention refers to interventions designed to pre-
vent the development of criminal potential in individuals, especial-
ly those targeting risk and protective factors discovered in studies of
human development (Tremblay & Craig, 1995; Farrington & Welsh,
2007). Community prevention refers to interventions designed to
change the social conditions and institutions (e.g., families, peers,
social norms, clubs, organizations) that influence offending in resi-
dential communities (Hope, 1995). Situational prevention refers to
interventions designed to prevent the occurrence of crimes by reduc-
ing opportunities and increasing the risk and difficulty of offending
(Clarke, 2009). Criminal justice prevention refers to traditional deter-
rent, incapacitative, and rehabilitative strategies operated by law en-
forcement and criminal justice system agencies (Blumstein, Cohen, &
Nagin, 1978).
Developmental prevention is the newest form of crime preven-
tion. It is also the most relevant to crime prevention from a biological
perspective and, potentially, the one approach that can give rise to
neuroethical concerns. This is because developmental prevention fo-
cuses on risk and protective factors that have been shown to affect
the probability of delinquency and later criminal offending (DeLisi,
2005; Welsh, 2011). While it is the case that not all risk and protec-
tive factors targeted by developmental prevention are internal to
the individual, many of the programs or interventions that are consid-
ered developmental explicitly address biological factors.
Preventing the Development of Criminal Behavior: The Role
of Biology
As Rafter (2008) argues, after a prolonged hiatus in the mid to late
20th century, sociologically-oriented criminologists are becoming
more comfortable with studying biological/psychological factors re-
lated to crime. Research has become more sophisticated, able to
isolate particular genetic polymorphisms and brain functioning pat-
terns that are correlated with increased criminal behavior (Baker,
Bezdjian, & Raine, 2006; Raine et al., in press; Raine & Liu, 1998;
Raine et al., 2000; Yang et al., 2005). The work of Raine and colleagues
has shown how technology (e.g., functional MRIs) can illustrate the
307
link between brain functioning deficits and criminal/antisocial behav-
ior. For the most part, modern strategies or policies that attempt to
prevent the development of antisocial behavior from a biological
standpoint target risk factors. Risk factors are prior factors that in-
crease the probability of criminal or deviant behavior (Farrington,
2007). Thorough reviews of early risk factors and what Brennan and
Raine (1997) call “biosocial bases” of crime can be found in numerous
sources (see Farrington, 2007; Farrington & Welsh, 2007; Lipsey &
Derzon, 1998; Raine & Liu, 1998), and will only briefly be discussed
here. This will serve to provide context for the discussion of crime pre-
vention strategies or recommendations that target these factors.
Neuropsychological/Cognitive Deficits
One of the strongest correlates of later criminal behavior (and
other life-course problems) is neuropsychological or cognitive deficits
in childhood (see DeLisi & Vaughn, 2011; Moffitt, 1993; Tremblay &
Craig, 1995). These deficits are characterized by a difficulty in “plan-
ning, organizational skills, selective attention and inhibitory control,
and optimal cognitive-set maintenance” (Morgan & Lilienfeld, 2000:
114). Individuals with cognitive deficits may have trouble conforming
to social expectations and delaying gratification or adjusting to
society. Neuropsychological or cognitive deficits are measured in a
variety of ways, including tests of executive functions, attention,
working memory, verbal skills, and intelligence (Beaver et al., 2010;
Farrington, 2007; Morgan & Lilienfeld, 2000; Tibbetts & Piquero,
1999). Low intelligence is likely (in part) a function of generalized
cognitive impairment across a number of neurocognitive domains
(see Yoshikawa, 1995).
Researchers are still discovering the causes of neuropsychological
or cognitive deficits (Beaver et al., 2010). Some work has traced
neuropsychological or cognitive deficits to specific parts of the brain
(e.g., the frontal lobe) and are thought to be caused in part by events
early on in fetal or child development (e.g., in utero drug or alcohol
use) (see Beaver et al., 2010; McGloin, Pratt, & Piquero, 2006;
Moffitt, 1993; Raine & Liu, 1998). Some work has found that mental
disruptions may be caused by disorders such as phenlyketonuria
(PKU; see Diamond et al., 1997). Some forms of cognitive deficits ap-
pear to be caused later in child development, for example, by trauma
events or experiencing abuse (Navalta et al., 2006). These deficits
are associated with behavioral difficulties early in childhood (e.g., con-
duct disorder) that tend to extend throughout the life course (Beaver
et al., 2010; Moffitt, 1993). Most likely there are not one but several
compounding causes of impaired cognitive functioning which encom-
pass genetic, biological, psychological, and social influences.
Impulsivity/Negative Emotionality
While criminologists often think of impulsivity and negative emo-
tionality as personality traits, research has indicated that they have
biological underpinnings. Impulsivity is defined by the “inability to
control behavior” (Farrington, 2007: 611). Some theorists argue that
this trait is more important than any other in the development of
criminality (Farrington, 2007; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Wilson
& Herrnstein, 1985). It is unclear whether impulsivity is caused solely
by biological factors or whether certain social conditions impact its
manifestation. However, some work has found that genetics (Benko
et al., 2011; DeLisi & Vaughn, 2011) and brain impairment are associ-
ated with this trait (Arce & Santisteban, 2006; Farrington, 2007;
Farrington & Loeber, 2000). For example, impulsive homicides are as-
sociated with reduced glucose metabolism in the prefrontal cortex, a
part of the brain involved in the control and regulation of behavior
(Raine et al., 1998). According to Farrington and Loeber (2000),
impulsivity or impulse control has been found to be significantly as-
sociated with delinquency across a number of prospective longitudi-
nal studies (see also DeLisi & Vaughn, 2011). Negative temperament
308 M. Rocque et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (2012) 306–312
(e.g., irritability) may also be associated with poor behavior because
of the social responses it ‘evokes’ (Agnew, 2005; Moffitt, 1993).
Conduct Disorder/Aggression
Research has shown that early aggression or diagnoses of conduct
disorder in children are significant predictors of later antisocial or
criminal behavior. According to Baker et al. (2006), studies indicate
that up to 70% of children diagnosed with conduct disorder will have
a criminal conviction in adulthood. In addition, Baker and colleagues
argue that conduct disorder is often a precursor to antisocial personal-
ity disorder, which is accompanied by antisocial behavior. Studies
have also shown that conduct disorder predicts the development of
a host of negative life outcomes, including substance abuse, intimate
partner violence, and welfare dependency (Bardone et al., 1996).
Some research has indicated that substance use on the part of parents,
low familial socioeconomic status, and early behavioral problems
predict the development of conduct disorder (Loeber et al., 1995).
While aggressive behavior on the part of children may be consid-
ered antisocial behavior (making it a somewhat circular predictor of
antisocial behavior), research has shown that it is related to violence
and crime in later adulthood (Tremblay et al., 2004). Therefore, pro-
grams that identify aggressive children may be important in reducing
later criminal behavior. For example, Tremblay and Craig (1995; see
also Nagin & Tremblay, 2001) found that teenage motherhood, mater-
nal smoking, and low family socioeconomic status were related to the
development of early childhood aggression.
Mental/Physical Health
Research has also suggested that physical and mental health (or
illness) is related to criminal and antisocial behavior. This suggestion
can be traced all the way to the beginnings of scientific criminological
thinking (Fink, 1962; Rafter, 2009). With respect to mental health,
schizophrenia, antisocial personality disorder, and depression are as-
sociated with crime (DeCoster & Heimer, 2001; Fazel et al., 2009).
Hodgins (1992), in an analysis of a birth cohort, found that men
with a mental illness were over two times as likely to have committed
a violent crime. It should be noted though, that the overall relation-
ship between mental illness and crime is complex, and the evidence
shows that not all mental illnesses are associated with increased
risk for criminal behavior (Brennan et al., 2000). Poor health has
been associated with later criminal behavior – through poor nutrition
of the mother and infant (Brennan & Raine, 1997; Raine, 2002). Liu et
al. (2004) reported that poor nutrition at age 3 predicted antisocial
and externalizing behavior at later stages of the life-course.
Crime Prevention and Biology
A review of the crime prevention literature reveals that there are
few, if any, programs currently in place that focus solely on biological
factors. The term “biological crime prevention” does not appear to
be in use, most likely because of negative historic implications such
a term would have. Poston and Winebarger (1996), for example,
warned that reductionistic biological thinking applied to prevention
of problem behaviors has resulted in a “‘neo-eugenics’ movement”
(p. 134). However, biological crime prevention does not have to be
reductionistic, denying the influence of social factors. In fact, most
modern approaches that incorporate biology in the prevention of
crime recognize that factors such as genes or personality interact
with the environment and the best way to address them is to alter
the latter (Beauchaine et al., 2008; Knudsen et al., 2006; Rafter,
2008). Thus, biologically-oriented perspectives do not see the body
as operating in a vacuum.
Biocriminologists and researchers from various disciplines have
increasingly begun to offer recommendations for the prevention of
crime that are compatible with traditional sociological approaches
(see Beauchaine et al., 2008; Beaver, 2009; Vaske et al., 2011;
Wright, Tibbetts & Daigle, (2008)). Scholars who advocate the integra-
tion of biology into criminological work have argued that antisocial
behavior can be prevented through the use of targeted programs,
and do not have to imply “repressive state interventions” (Wright
et al., 2008: 253). For example, some researchers have suggested
that programs emphasizing the improvement of cognitive skills (e.g.,
‘cognitive remediation’) will be effective in reducing crime (Fishbein,
2000; Raine & Liu, 1998). Fishbein (2000), in a review of the relevance
of neurological research to antisocial behavior policy, argued that
“prevention approaches can potentially suppress genetic expression
of risk factors by, for example, favorable family environment”
(p. 101). Biocriminologists also often call for improvements in prena-
tal and maternal care in order to ensure that infants develop normally
(see Fishbein, 2000; Raine, 2002; Wright et al., 2008). Raine (2002,
p. 71) suggests that targeting “the psychosocial half of the biosocial
equation” appears to be the most effective strategy to prevent crime
from a biological perspective. He argues for the use of parenting
classes to improve social bonds within families (see also Wright &
Boisvert, 2009). Thus, researchers in a variety of fields are arguing
that biology should play a role in prevention as well as treatment of
criminal behavior. Importantly, as we discuss below, nearly all of
these scholars’ recommendations have been implemented and evalu-
ated in some form through programs that (sometimes as a secondary
focus) seek to prevent delinquency and antisocial behavior in youth.
In addition, some experimental work has begun to show how address-
ing biological factors may lead to a reduction in antisocial behavior.
Our coverage of prevention programs is by no means exhaustive, but
meant instead to illustrate our points.
Family-Centered and Parenting Programs
Evidence that health and nutrition programs for pregnant women
and their infants can impact later antisocial behavior began to emerge
in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Such programs, which usually con-
centrate on improving parenting skills, have been reviewed by
numerous scholars and generally demonstrate a positive impact on
child development (see DeLisi, 2005; Farrington & Welsh, 2007;
Piquero et al., 2009). Parenting programs typically seek to prevent
neuropsychological or cognitive deficits along with a host of other
risk factors (e.g., impulsivity, school failure). For example, teaching
mothers to avoid the hazards of smoking or ingesting narcotics dur-
ing pregnancy can reduce neuropsychological impairment of the in-
fant (Beaver et al., 2010).
The most well-known home visiting program and the only one
that includes a direct measure of criminal behavior is the Nurse-
Family Partnership (NFP) developed by David Olds (Olds et al.,
2007). NFP was first tested in Elmira, New York, in the early 1980s.
Today, NFP operates in 400 counties in 32 states, serving more than
21,000 families each year. It is also being implemented in many
other countries, including Australia, Germany, Norway, and the U.K.
In the Elmira trial, 400 first-time mothers were randomly assigned
to receive home visits from nurses during pregnancy, or to receive visits
both during pregnancy and during the first two years of life, or to a con-
trol group who received no visits. Each visit lasted just over one hour
and the mothers were visited approximately once every two weeks.
The home visitors provided information concerning prenatal and post-
natal care of the child, infant development, and proper nutrition as well
as advice on avoiding smoking and drinking during pregnancy.
The results of this experiment showed that the postnatal home
visits caused a significant decrease in recorded child physical abuse
and neglect during the first two years of life, especially by poor, un-
married, teenage mothers; 4% of visited versus 19% of nonvisited
mothers of this type were guilty of child abuse or neglect (Olds et al.,
1986). In a 15-year follow-up (13 years after program completion),
 M. Rocque et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (2012) 306–312
which included 330 mothers and 315 children, significantly fewer
experimental compared to control group mothers were identified
as perpetrators of child abuse and neglect (29% vs. 54%), and, for the
higher risk sample only, significantly fewer treatment mothers, in
contrast to the controls, had alcohol or substance abuse problems or
were arrested. At the age of 15, children of the treatment mothers
had committed significantly fewer violent and other major criminal
acts than their control counterparts (a mean of 3.02 compared to
3.57; Olds et al., 1998). In the latest follow-up at age 19, compared
to their control counterparts, girls of the full sample of mothers had
incurred significantly fewer arrests and convictions and girls of the
higher risk mothers had significantly fewer children of their own
and less Medicaid use; few program effects were observed for the
boys (Eckenrode et al., 2010). Large-scale replications in Memphis
and Denver have also shown a wide range of positive effects for chil-
dren and mothers (Olds et al., 2007).
In the evaluation literature, most parenting programs that target risk
factors for delinquency take place after the birth of the child (Doyle et
al., 2009). Tremblay and Japel (2003) reviewed over 40 programs that
attempted to improve parenting skills through education or support.
Many of these programs explicitly focused on the prevention of cogni-
tive deficits through the strengthening of cognitive skills. Others have
targeted what Tremblay and Craig (1995; see also Tremblay & Japel,
2003) term “socially disruptive behaviors,” including impulsivity and
hyperactivity. The authors suggest that, for the most part, these pro-
grams have been effective.
Unfortunately, many evaluations of developmental prevention
programs do not include measures of antisocial behavior, crime, or
delinquency (Tremblay & Craig, 1995; Tremblay & Japel, 2003). Cer-
tain home visitation programs (such as Hawaii Healthy Start) that
do not directly measure antisocial behavior as an outcome have none-
theless shown benefits for healthy child development (e.g., Duggan
et al., 1999). To the extent that these programs target biological risk
factors for crime (e.g., neurocognitive skills), these findings may
have implications for crime prevention.
Preschool and School-Based Programs
Some programs attempting to alter the development of biological
risk factors for antisocial behavior have taken place in a school setting.
Enriched preschool programs are designed to provide “economically
disadvantaged children with cognitively stimulating and enriching
experiences that their parents are unlikely to provide at home”
(Duncan & Magnuson, 2004, p. 105). Their main goals are improved
cognitive skills, school readiness, and social and emotional develop-
ment (Currie, 2001).
The most famous preschool intellectual enrichment program is the
Perry Preschool project carried out in Ypsilanti, Michigan (Schweinhart
& Weikart, 1980). A sample of 123 children from impoverished homes
was allocated (approximately at random) to experimental and control
groups. The experimental children attended a daily preschool program,
backed up by weekly home visits, usually lasting two years when
children were aged 3 to 4 years. The aim of the “plan-do-review” pro-
gram was to provide intellectual stimulation, to increase thinking and
reasoning abilities, and to increase later school achievement. The pro-
gram produced long-term benefits. For example, Berrueta-Clement
et al. (1984) found that, at age 19, the experimental group was more
likely to be employed, more likely to have graduated from high school,
more likely to have received college or vocational training, and less
likely to have been arrested. By age 27, the experimental group had
accumulated only half as many arrests as the controls – an average
of 2.3 compared to 4.6 arrests (Schweinhart et al., 1993). They were
more likely to have graduated from high school, had significantly
higher earnings, and were more likely to be home owners.
The most recent follow-up of Perry, at age 40 (which included 91%
of the original sample), found that, compared to the control group,
309
participants in the original preschool program had significantly
fewer lifetime arrests for violent crimes (32% vs. 48%), property
crimes (36% vs. 58%), and drug crimes (14% vs. 34%), and were signif-
icantly less likely to be arrested five or more times (36% vs. 55%). Sig-
nificantly higher levels of schooling (77% vs. 60% graduating from
high school), better records of employment (76% vs. 62%), and higher
annual incomes also were found at age 40 among preschool partici-
pants compared to the controls (Schweinhart et al., 1993).
Another effective preschool intellectual enrichment program
is the Carolina Abercedarian Project (Campbell et al., 2002). This pro-
gram was also targeted at children born to low-income, multi-risk
families. A sample of 111 children aged 3 were randomly assigned ei-
ther to receive full-time preschool childcare (focusing on the devel-
opment of cognitive and language skills) or not. Families of children
in both the experimental and control groups received supportive so-
cial services as needed.
At age 21, 104 of the participants were interviewed, and it was
found that fewer of the experimentals compared to the controls
(but not significantly so) reported being convicted for a misdemeanor
offense (14% vs. 18%) or a felony offense (8% vs. 12%) or incarcerated
(14% vs. 21%). It was also found that significantly fewer of the exper-
imental participants were regular marijuana users, significantly fewer
had become a teenage parent, significantly more had attended college
or university, and they had significantly higher status jobs.
There are also a number of school-based crime prevention pro-
grams that have been developed for youths with identified biological
risk factors. For example, Conrod et al. (2010) assessed the effective-
ness of a coping skills program for teenagers exhibiting high levels
of impulsivity or sensation seeking. The program took place in 24 sec-
ondary schools in London and 732 students were randomly assigned
to the intervention or control groups. Intervention group students
received two 90 minute sessions of problem-solving education and
cognitive behavioral therapy. The results after 2 years indicated that
the intervention group compared to their control counterparts used
fewer drugs and were less likely to experiment with new drugs
(Conrod et al., 2010).
Mental or Physical Illness Programs
There is some evidence to suggest that programs may have the
potential to aid the prevention of certain serious mental illnesses or
disorders. For example, a meta-analysis of 13 studies showed the po-
tential to prevent the onset of a variety of illnesses, ranging from psy-
chosis to anxiety disorders (Cuijpers et al., 2005). These findings have
implications for crime prevention. Raine et al. (2003a; 2003b) dem-
onstrated the potential impact of programs designed to reduce men-
tal illness (e.g., schizotypal personality) on behavior. In their study,
100 children (age 3) were given an “environmental enrichment” pro-
gram, in which nursery school teachers attempted to improve the
health, physical activity, and cognitive stimulation of the participants.
The program lasted for 2 years from ages three to five years. The re-
sults demonstrated that, as compared to a “community control
group,” the intervention youth at age 17 had fewer behavioral prob-
lems and fewer signs of schizotypal personality. At age 23 years, the
experimental group showed a 34% reduction in criminal offending.
Related to the risk factor of physical health, the authors speculate
that the increased physical activity and improved nutrition which
the intervention group experienced might account for the benefits at-
tributed to the program. For example, nutritional status before the
prevention program began at age 3 moderated outcomes for conduct
disorder at age 17; the enrichment reduced conduct disorder more in
children who had relatively poorer nutrition before the program
began. They note evidence suggesting that increased activity can im-
prove brain development (in particular, neurogenesis in the dentate
gyrus of the hippocampus) in animal models and may be an impor-
tant crime prevention strategy for youths. To the extent that certain
310 M. Rocque et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (2012) 306–312
types of mental illnesses are a risk factor for crime, preventing the ill-
ness in the first place should reduce criminal behavior in later life.
One interesting program seeking to prevent crime by focusing on
physical health is currently being conducted in the United Kingdom.
The Healthier Lives, Safer Communities program is premised on the
idea that promoting better physical health will reduce offending
among children (National Health Service, 2009). The evidence for the
link between physical health and crime is not altogether clear, but pro-
gram advocates suggest that health may impact behavior indirectly
(e.g., through self-esteem). The most recent evidence to date suggests
that the link between health and crime may be that persistent crime re-
sults in deteriorated health over the life course (see Piquero et al., 2007).
However, it seems that little is known about the link between health
and crime early in life. This program is slightly different than those
reviewed above because it targets youth in contact with the criminal
justice system. Nonetheless, by its focus on preventing biological risk
factors (and crime) it is consistent with crime prevention approaches.
Nutrition and Crime Prevention
The effect of nutrition on cognitive development has been studied
for decades (see e.g., Brown & Pollitt, 1996). Because of the increasing
amount of research that has demonstrated a link among cognitive
deficits, brain functioning, and crime, it is perhaps not surprising
that recent work has shown that nutrition can help prevent anti-
social behavior. For example, certain of the family/parenting pro-
grams reviewed above focus on nutrition and healthy development
(Farrington & Welsh, 2007; Olds et al., 1986; 2007).
It appears that nutrition may even have a relatively concurrent
effect on behavior. Thirty years ago, Schoenthaler (1983) observed
a decrease in antisocial behavior among incarcerated youth by remov-
ing unhealthy foods from their diet. Until recently, this link has gone
largely ignored in the literature. Researchers have currently begun to
discover that nutritional supplements may have a large impact on be-
havior, through cognitive functioning (Raine et al., in press). Several
studies of children and adults have examined fish oil (Omega-3), specif-
ically Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) and Eicosapentaenoic Acid (EPA),
with respect to its effect on aggression and other antisocial behaviors.
This is based on research that has shown fish oil can improve neurite
outgrowth in the brain, resulting in larger dendritic branching and neu-
rons. Interestingly enough, certain work has shown that seafood inges-
tion by mothers during pregnancy is associated with higher cognitive
functioning and less antisocial behavior on the part of the children
(Hibbeln et al., 2007).
Several experimental studies have demonstrated that fish oil is
associated with improved behavior and/or decreased aggression in
the general population (Kirby et al., 2010; Hamazaki et al., 2008;
Itomura et al., 2005). The desirable effect of fish oil has also been
found for at-risk individuals. For example, Zanarini and Frankenburg
(2003) carried out a study in which 30 women with borderline person-
ality disorder were randomly assigned to a treatment group (which re-
ceived 1 g of EPA for 2 months) or to a control group (a placebo). They
found that the treatment group evinced lower aggression and depres-
sion at post-program follow-up. Another randomized trial, conducted
by Hallahan et al. (2007), found a 29% reduction (although not signifi-
cant) in aggression in a group of patients who were given .9 g DHA,
1.2 g EPA, and 24 mg vitamin E compared to a group given olive oil.
Experimental research has also focused on fish oil's effect on
anger. Buydens-Branchey et al. (2008), examining the effect of both
EPA and DHA compared to soybean (placebo), found that the treat-
ment groups had significantly lower anger than the control group.
The findings suggested that it was DHA that had the largest effect.
Gesch and colleagues (2002) reported on a randomized trial examining
a treatment of nutritional supplements which included fish oils. Once
again, this study found that fish oil resulted in a statistically significant
decrease in antisocial acts. In sum, experimental research has shown
that nutritional supplements may significantly impact behavior, in-
cluding crime. This suggests another important link between biology
and behavior that has yet to be explored in mainstream criminology
or crime prevention.
Discussion and Conclusions
Biological theorizing is slowly making a comeback into mainstream
criminological thought (Walsh & Beaver, 2009b). While full-fledged
theoretical statements that incorporate biological characteristics are
still rare (for an exception, see Moffitt, 1993), there is a growing litera-
ture on the importance of biological risk factors. Most of this risk factor
work has been undertaken with crime prevention in mind. That is,
to understand the most effective ways in which to prevent or reduce
crime, so the logic goes, it is essential to identify the most prominent
factors associated with later criminal offending.
Today's crime prevention literature is characterized by divergent
foci, from community, to built environment, to early childhood devel-
opment strategies. With respect to biological causes of crime, a very
relevant crime prevention strategy is developmental. This approach
recognizes the interaction between the person and the environment,
which is the viewpoint of contemporary biosocial researchers in
crime and delinquency (see DeLisi et al., 2008; Walsh & Beaver,
2009a; 2009b; Wright & Boisvert, 2009). The developmental ap-
proach tends to focus on identifying risk factors for children or fami-
lies and seeks to improve environmental conditions in order to
facilitate healthy development of the child (Tremblay & Japel, 2003).
For the most part, a “biological crime prevention” approach that
focuses on identifying those “born” to commit crime is a relic of the
past in criminology. However, as we have shown in this article, existing
crime prevention programs—programs advocated by biocriminologists
(Beaver, 2009; Wright et al., 2008)—do address biological risk factors.
These programs often seek to either prevent the occurrence of biologi-
cal risk factors (e.g., preventing the development of cognitive deficits)
or to prevent criminal behavior among those with identified risk factors.
The prediction of Richard Moran, over 30 years ago, that “[o]nce
biomedics and biotechnological control of crime has been demonstrated
to be effective and practical, it is probable that the rehabilitative ideal…
will reassert itself ” (1978:354), appears to be on the verge of realization
(see e.g., Vaske et al., 2011).
Developmental prevention programs likely have myriad effects on
biological risk factors. For example, research indicates that programs
beginning early in life encourage healthy brain development. There
is a rich body of literature that illustrates how poor early environ-
ments have a negative effect on cognitive development (Doyle et al.,
2009; Knudsen et al., 2006). Knudsen and colleagues (2006) argue
that early prevention programs can improve cognitive functioning
in a cumulative fashion. Studies showing that proper nutrition can
improve neural growth in the brain is also crucial here. Other pro-
grams have been evaluated with an eye toward understanding how
biological factors are changed (e.g., the effect of Raine et al. (2003a),
Raine et al. (2003b) schizotypy program on the hippocampus). Cogni-
tive behavioral programs may have a similar impact on brain
development. In cases where risk factors are heritable or genetic, pro-
grams can prevent crime through identifying environmental triggers
that may increase criminal behavior.
In the future, it is reasonable to assume that more programs or
strategies concentrating on biological risk factors will emerge. For
example, Raine and Liu (1998) find that for those with low resting
levels of arousal, stimulation therapy may be beneficial. They argue
that such treatment may reduce crime for stimulation seekers. They
also suggest early screening for neuropsychological or pre-frontal cor-
tical deficits to determine the need for remediation therapy. Fishbein
(2000) recommends ‘neurorehabilitation’ approaches for those with
cognitive impairment. Vaske and colleagues (2011) attempt to show
how biosocial research may lead to insights on offender rehabilitation.
 M. Rocque et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (2012) 306–312
They argue that cognitive behavioral treatment programs may be
effective in part because of their impact on brain functioning and
interventions should be made sensitive to neurological factors. Impor-
tantly, these approaches do not seek to radically alter the individual's
biology, but rather to improve functioning in the social world.
Beauchaine et al. (2008) argue that neurocognitive research could
help inform prevention and intervention strategies in numerous ways,
including identifying those most genetically in need of treatment.
In terms of developmental crime prevention, research has suggested
that the earlier the intervention, the better. The most important stages
of development for cognitive growth appears to occur during pregnancy
to the first 2 years of life, as PET scan technology has indicated impres-
sive growth and maturation of cognitive functions during this period
(Chugani, 1998). Research has found that trauma during this period
can be especially impactful, affecting brain development into adulthood
(Doyle et al., 2009; Knudsen et al., 2006; Perry, Pollard et al., 1995).
Knudsen and colleagues (2006) argue that disadvantaged environments
can severely retard cognitive development with lasting effects, which
include an increased risk of poverty, lower educational status, and
poorer employment opportunities. Importantly, however, work in
non-human models has shown that treatment targeting those exposed
to early trauma can ameliorate the negative cognitive developmental
effects of trauma (Beauchaine et al., 2008; Weaver et al., 2005; Weaver,
Meaney, & Szyf, 2006). Thus, early intervention is of paramount impor-
tance in addressing certain biological causes of crime.
With respect to the criminal justice system, a more limited ap-
proach will likely prevail, but it is not unreasonable to expect that
some programs that target “criminogenic needs” (Andrews & Bonta,
2010) may in fact address biological/genetic factors in the future.
The principles of effective intervention suggests that offenders should
be matched with programs that address their specific risk factors.
If correctional systems improve in terms of sophistication of the data
they collect on offenders, genetic or other biological factors may well
be “criminogenic needs” that programs may target.
Programs that identify youth with specific brain or other impair-
ments will have to balance individual rights against the potential
benefit of a potentially intrusive therapy. It will also be important for
researchers to ensure that with new knowledge of the role of body in
criminal behavior, prevention approaches do not venture into unethical
grounds. Rose (2000) warns against the rise of neoeugenicists who
may call for “genetic screening as a precondition for employment or
insurance” (p. 23). Perhaps, though, the greatest danger associated
with work that calls for ‘crime prevention through a biological lens’ is
the “misuse” by political leaders or the media of such information
(Rafter, 2009: 246). Prevention programs rely on funds that are often
allocated by governmental agencies. The identification of biological
causes of crime may be politically attractive, but without care, could
have misleading and even dangerous consequences.
As we have shown in this article, however, a focus on biology
can be used in an effective and non-discriminatory way to prevent
crime. Today's bio-crime prevention approaches recognize the impor-
tance of the environment and of early intervention. These strategies
seek to improve lives rather than remove people from society. In
that sense bio-crime prevention is a positive development—one that
deserves more attention from the criminological community.
References
Agnew, R. (2005). Why do criminals offend? Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Press.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. (5th ed.). New
Providence, NJ: Matthew Bender & Co.
Arce, E., & Santisteban, C. (2006). Impulsivity: A review. Psicothema-Oviedo, 18(2), 213–220.
Baker, L. A., Bezdjian, S., & Raine, A. (2006). Behavioral genetics: The science of antiso-
cial behavior. Law and Contemporary Problems, 69(1–2), 7–46.
Bardone, A. M., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Dickson, N., & Silva, P. A. (1996). Adult mental
health and social outcomes of adolescent girls with depression and conduct disor-
der. Development and Psychopathology, 8(04), 811–829.
311
Beauchaine, T. P., Neuhaus, E., Brenner, S. L., & Gatzke-Kopp, L. (2008). Ten good
reasons to consider biological processes in prevention and intervention research.
Development and Psychopathology, 20(3), 745–774.
Beaver, K. M. (2009). Biosocial criminology: A primer. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Beaver, K. M., Vaughn, M. G., DeLisi, M., & Higgins, G. E. (2010). The biosocial correlates
of neuropsychological deficits: Results from the National Longitudinal Study of
Adolescent Health. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 54(6), 878–894.
Benko, A., Lazary, J., Molnar, E., Gonda, X., Pap, D., & Juhasz, G. (2011). Genetics and
impulsivity. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 26(p), e18–e19.
Berrueta-Clement, J. R., Schweinhart, L. J., Barnett, W. S., Epstein, A. E., & Weikart, D. P.
(1984). Changed lives: The effects of the Perry preschool program on youths through
age 19. Ypsilanti, Mich.: High/Scope Press, Monographs of the HighScope Educa-
tional Research Foundation.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., & Nagin, D. (1978). Deterrence and incapacitation: Estimating
the effects of criminal sanctions on crime rates. Washington, DC: National Academy
of Sciences.
Brennan, P. A., & Raine, A. (1997). Biosocial bases of antisocial behavior: Psychophysi-
ological, neurological, and cognitive factors. Clinical Psychology Review, 17(6),
589–604.
Brennan, P. A., Mednick, S. A., & Hodgins, S. (2000). Major mental disorders and criminal
violence in a Danish birth cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57(5), 494–500.
Brown, J. L., & Pollitt, E. (1996). Malnutrition, poverty and intellectual development.
Scientific American, 274(2), 38–43.
Buydens-Branchey, L., Branchey, M., & Hibbeln, J. R. (2008). Associations between
increases in plasma n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids following supplementation
and decreases in anger and anxiety in substance abusers. Progress in Neuro-
Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry, 32(2), 568–575.
Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early
childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian project. Applied
Developmental Science, 6(1), 42–57.
Chugani, H. T. (1998). A critical period of brain development: Studies of cerebral glu-
cose utilization with PET. Preventive Medicine, 27(2), 184–188.
Clarke, R. V. (2009). Situational crime prevention: Theoretical background and current
practice. In M. D. Krohn, A. J. Lizotte, & G. P. Hall (Eds.), Handbook on crime and
deviance (pp. 259–276). New York: Springer.
Conrod, P. J., Castellanos-Ryan, N., & Strang, J. (2010). Brief, personality-targeted coping
skills interventions and survival as a non-drug user over a 2-year period during
adolescence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(1), 85–93.
Cuijpers, P., Van Straten, A., & Smit, F. (2005). Preventing the incidence of new cases of
mental disorders: A meta-analytic review. The Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disease, 193(2), 119–125.
Currie, J. (2001). Early childhood education programs. Journal of Economic Perspectives,
15(2), 213–238.
DeCoster, S., & Heimer, K. (2001). The relationship between law violation and depres-
sion: An interactions analysis. Criminology, 39(4), 799–836.
DeLisi, M. (2005). Career criminals in society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DeLisi, M., Beaver, K. M., Wright, J. P., & Vaughn, M. G. (2008). The etiology of criminal
onset: The enduring salience of nature and nurture. Journal of Criminal Justice,
36(3), 217–223.
Doyle, O., Harmon, C. P., Heckman, J. J., & Tremblay, R. E. (2009). Investing in early human
development: Timing and economic efficiency. Economics and Human Biology, 7, 1–6.
DeLisi, M., & Vaughn, M. G. (2011). The importance of neuropsychological deficits
relating to self-control and temperament to the prevention of serious antisocial
behavior. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 2(1/2), 12–35.
Diamond, A., Prevor, M. B., Callender, G., & Druin, D. P. (1997). Prefrontal cortex cogni-
tive deficits in children treated early and continuously for PKU. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 62(4), i-v, 1–208.
Duggan, A. K., McFarlane, E. C., Windham, A. M., Rohde, C. A., Salkever, D. S., Fuddy, L.,…
Sia, C. C. J. (1999). Evaluation of Hawaii's healthy start program. The Future of Chil-
dren, 9(1), 66–90.
Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. (2004). Individual and parent-based intervention: Strat-
egies for promoting human capital and positive behavior. In P. L. Chase-Lansdale, K.
Kiernan, & R. J. Friedman (Eds.), Human development across lives and generations:
The potential for change (pp. 93–135). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eckenrode, J., Campa, M., Luckey, D. W., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Kitzman, H.,…Olds, D.
(2010). Long-term effects of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on the life
course of youths: 19-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics and
Adolescent Medicine, 164(1), 9–15.
Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2007). Saving children from a life of crime: Early risk
factors and effective interventions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Farrington, D. P. (2007). Developmental criminology and risk-focused prevention. In
M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology
(Vol. 4, pp. 657–701). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Farrington, D. P., & Loeber, R. (2000). Epidemiology of juvenile violence. Child and
Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 9(4), 733–748.
Fazel, S., Gulati, G., Linsell, L., Geddes, J. R., & Grann, M. (2009). Schizophrenia and
violence: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Medicine, 6(8), e1000120.
Fink, A. E. (1962). Causes of crime: Biological theories of crime in the United States
1800-1915. New York: A.S Barnes and Company.
Fishbein, D. (2000). The importance of neurobiological research to the prevention of
psychopathology. Prevention Science, 1(2), 89–106.
Gesch, C. B., Hammond, S. M., Hampson, S. E., Eves, A., & Crowder, M. J. (2002).
Influence of supplementary vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids on the
antisocial behaviour of young adult prisoners: Randomised, placebo-controlled
trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 181, 22–28.
312 M. Rocque et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (2012) 306–312
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Hallahan, B., Hibbeln, J. R., Davis, J. M., & Garland, M. R. (2007). Omega-3 fatty acid
supplementation in patients with recurrent self-harm: Single-centre double-
blind randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 190, 118–122.
Hamazaki, K., Syafruddin, D., Tunru, I. S., Fazwir, M., Asih, P. B. S., Sawazaki, S., &
Hamazaki, T. (2008). The effects of docosahexaenoic acid-rich fish oil on behavior,
school attendance rate and malaria infection in school children–a double-blind,
randomized, placebo-controlled trial in lampung, indonesia. Asia Pacific Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, 17(2), 258–263.
Hibbeln, J. R., Davis, J. M., Steer, C., Emmett, P., Rogers, I., Williams, C., & Golding, J.
(2007). Maternal seafood consumption in pregnancy and neurodevelopmental
outcomes in childhood (ALSPAC study): An observational cohort study. The Lancet,
369(9561), 578–585.
Hodgins, S. (1992). Mental disorder, intellectual deficiency, and crime: Evidence from a
birth cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry, 49(6), 476–483.
Hope, T. (1995). Community crime prevention. In M. Tonry & D. P. Farrington (Eds.),
Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime prevention. Crime and justice:
A review of research (Vol. 19, pp. 21–89). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Itomura, M., Hamazaki, K., Sawazaki, S., Kobayashi, M., Terasawa, K., Watanabe, S., &
Hamazaki, T. (2005). The effect of fish oil on physical aggression in schoolchildren—
a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The Journal of Nutritional
Biochemistry, 16(3), 163–171.
Kirby, A., Woodward, A., Jackson, S., Wang, Y., & Crawford, M. (2010). A double-blind,
placebo-controlled study investigating the effects of omega-3 supplementation in
children aged 8-10 years from a mainstream school population. Research in Devel-
opmental Disabilities, 31(3), 718–730.
Knudsen, E. I., Heckman, J. J., Cameron, J. L., & Shonkoff, J. P. (2006). Economic,
neurobiological, and behavior perspectives on building America's future work-
force. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 10155–10162.
Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (1998). Predictors of violent or serious delinquency in
adolescence and early adulthood: A synthesis of longitudinal research. In R.
Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors
and successful interventions (pp. 86–105). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Liu, J., Raine, A., Venables, P. H., & Mednick, S. A. (2004). Malnutrition at age 3 years and
externalizing behavior problems at ages 8, 11, and 17 years. The American Journal of
Psychiatry, 161(11), 2005–2013.
Loeber, R., Green, S. M., Keenan, K., & Lahey, B. B. (1995). Which boys will fare worse?
Early predictors of the onset of conduct disorder in a six-year longitudinal study.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34(4), 499–509.
McGloin, J. M., Pratt, T. C., & Piquero, A. R. (2006). A life-course analysis of the
criminogenic effects of maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(4), 412–426.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behav-
ior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701.
Moran, R. (1978). Biomedical research and the politics of crime control: A historical
perspective. Crime, Law and Social Change, 2(3), 335–357.
Morgan, A. B., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2000). A meta-analytic review of the relation between
antisocial behavior and neuropsychological measures of executive function.
Clinical Psychology Review, 20(1), 113–136.
Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2001). Parental and early childhood predictors of
persistent physical aggression in boys from kindergarten to high school. Archives
of General Psychiatry, 58(4), 389–394.
Navalta, C. P., Polcari, A., Webster, D. M., Boghossian, A., & Teicher, M. H. (2006). Effects of
childhood sexual abuse on neuropsychological and cognitive function in college
women. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 18(1), 45–53.
National Health Service. (2009). Healthy children, safer communities: A strategy to
promote the health and well-being of children and young people in contact with the
youth justice system. London, UK: HMSO.
Olds, D., Henderson, C. R., Chamberlin, R., & Tatelbaum, R. (1986). Preventing child abuse
and neglect: A randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics, 78(1), 65–78.
Olds, D., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D.,…Powers, J.
(1998). Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children's criminal and
antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of
the American Medical Association, 280(14), 1238–1244.
Olds, D., Kitzman, H., Hanks, C., Cole, R., Anson, E., Sidora-Arcoleo, K.,…Tutt, R. A.
(2007). Effects of nurse home visiting on maternal and child functioning: Age-9
follow-up of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 120(4), e832–e845.
Perry, B. D., Pollard, R. A., Blakley, T. L., Baker, W. L., & Vigilante, D. (1995). Childhood trau-
ma, the neurobiology of adaptation, and? Use? Dependent? Development of the
brain: How? States? Become? Traits? Infant Mental Health Journal, 16(4), 271–291.
Piquero, A. R., Daigle, L. E., Gibson, C., Piquero, N. L., & Tibbetts, S. G. (2007). Research
note: Are life-course-persistent offenders at risk for adverse health outcomes?
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(2), 185–207.
Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., Tremblay, R. E., & Jennings, W. G. (2009).
Effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior and
delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(2), 83–120.
Poston, W., & Winebarger, A. (1996). The misuse of behavioral genetics in prevention
research, or for whom the “bell curve” tolls. Journal of Primary Prevention, 17(1),
133–147.
Rafter, N. H. (1997). Creating born criminals. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Rafter, N. H. (2008). The criminal brain: Understanding biological theories of crime.
New York: NYU Press.
Rafter, N. H. (2009). The origins of criminology: A reader. New York, NY: Routledge
Cavendish.
Raine, A. (2002a). The biological basis of crime. In J. Q. Wilson, & J. Petersilia (Eds.),
Crime: Public policies for crime control (2nd ed. pp. 43–74). Oakland, CA: ICS Press.
Raine, A., & Liu, J. (1998). Biological predispositions to violence and their implications
for biosocial treatment and prevention. Psychology, Crime and Law, 4(2), 107–125.
Raine, A., Meloy, R. J., Bihrle, S., Stoddard, J., LaCasse, L., & Buchsbaum, M. S. (1998). Re-
duced prefrontal and increased subcortical brain functioning assessed using Posi-
tron Emission Tomography in predatory and affective murderers. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law, 16(3), 319–332.
Raine, A., Lencz, T., Bihrle, S., LaCasse, L., & Colletti, P. (2000). Reduced prefrontal gray
matter volume and reduced autonomic activity in antisocial personality disorder.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 119–127.
Raine, A., Liu, J., Venables, P., & Mednick, S. A. (2003a). Preventing crime and schizo-
phrenia using early environmental enrichment. In A. Raine (Ed.), Crime and schizo-
phrenia: Causes and cures. New York: Nova Sciences Publishers.
Raine, A., Mellingen, K., Liu, J., Venables, P., & Mednick, S. A. (2003b). Effects of environ-
mental enrichment at ages 3-5 years on schizotypal personality and antisocial
behavior at ages 17 and 23 years. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(9),
1627–1635.
Raine, A., Rocque, M., & Welsh, B. C. (in press). Experimental neurocriminology: Etiol-
ogy and treatment. In B. C. Welsh, A. A. Braga, & G. J. N. Bruinsma (Eds.).
Experimental criminology: Prospects for advancing science and public policy. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Rivara, F. P., & Farrington, D. P. (1995). Prevention of violence: Role of the pediatrician.
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 149(4), 421–429.
Rose, N. (2000). The biology of culpability. Theoretical Criminology, 4(1), 5–34.
Schoenthaler, S. J. (1983). Diet and crime: An empirical examination of the value of nu-
trition in the control and treatment of incarcerated juvenile offenders. International
Journal of Biosocial Research, 4(1), 25–39.
Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1980). Young children grow up: The effects of the
Perry Preschool Program on youths through age 15. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V., & Weikart, D. P. (1993). Significant benefits: The High/
Scope Perry Preschool study through age 27. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
Tibbetts, S. G., & Piquero, A. R. (1999). The influence of gender, low birth weight, and
disadvantaged environment in predicting early onset of offending: A test of
Moffitt's interactional hypothesis. Criminology, 37(4), 843–878.
Tonry, M., & Farrington, D. P. (1995). Strategic approaches to crime prevention. In M. Tonry
& D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime preven-
tion. Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 19, pp. 1–20). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Tremblay, R. E., & Craig, W. M. (1995). Developmental crime prevention. In M. Tonry &
D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime
prevention. Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 19, pp. 151–236). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Tremblay, R. E., & Japel, C. (2003). Prevention during pregnancy, infancy and the
preschool years. In D. P. Farrington & J. W. Coid (Eds.), Early prevention of adult
antisocial behaviour (pp. 205–242). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tremblay, R. E., Nagin, D. S., Seguin, J. R., Zoccolillo, M., Zelazo, P. D., Bolvin, M.,…Japel,
C. (2004). Physical aggression during early childhood: Trajectories and predictors.
Pediatrics, 114(1), e43–e50.
Vaske, J., Galyean, K., & Cullen, F. T. (2011). Toward a biosocial theory of offender
rehabiltiation: Why does cognitive-behavioral therapy work? Journal of Criminal
Justice, 39(1), 90–102.
Visher, C. A., & Weisburd, D. (1997). Identifying what works: Recent trends in crime
prevention strategies. Crime, Law and Social Change, 28(3), 223–242.
Walsh, A., & Beaver, K. M. (2009a). Biosocial criminology. In M. D. Krohn, A. J. Lizotte, &
G. P. Hall (Eds.), Handbook on crime and deviance (pp. 79–101). New York: Springer.
Walsh, A., & Beaver, K. M. (2009b). Biosocial criminology: New directions in theory and
research. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Weaver, I. C. G., Champagne, F. A., Brown, S. E., Dymov, S., Sharma, S., Meaney, M. J., &
Szyf, M. (2005). Reversal of maternal programming of stress responses in adult
offspring through methyl supplementation: Altering epigenetic marking later in
life. Journal of Neuroscience, 25(47), 11045–11054.
Weaver, I. C. G., Meaney, M. J., & Szyf, M. (2006). Maternal care effects on the hippo-
campal transcriptome and anxiety-mediated behaviors in the offspring that are
reversible in adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(9),
3480–3485.
Welsh, B. C. (2011). Crime prevention. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of crime
and criminal justice (pp. 126–155). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, J. Q., & Herrnstein, R. (1985). Crime and human nature. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Wright, J. P., Tibbetts, S. G., & Diagle, L. E. (2008). Criminals in the making. Criminality
across the life course. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wright, J. P., & Boisvert, D. (2009). What biosocial criminology offers criminology.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(11), 1228–1240.
Yang, Y., Raine, A., Lencz, T., Bihrle, S., LaCasse, L., & Colletti, P. (2005). Volume reduction
in prefrontal gray matter in unsuccessful criminal psychopaths. Biological Psychiatry,
57(10), 1103–1108.
Yoshikawa, H. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on social
outcomes and delinquency. The Future of Children, 5(3), 51–75.
Zanarini, M. C., & Frankenburg, F. R. (2003). Omega-3 fatty acid treatment of women
with borderline personality disorder: A double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot
study. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(1), 167–169.