Biological Theories of Youth Crime

¶ … biological theories of youth crime have diminished in importance. What is you view after reading "Ghosts from the Nursery: Tracing the Roots of Violence"?

After reading "Ghosts from the Nursery: Tracing the Roots of Violence," I would have to disagree with this statement. Robin Karr-Morse and Meredith S. Wiley look at both biological and social factors in a child's early existence as springing boards for violence in later life. They present case histories of children who kill and refer to current research on the topic. Their conclusions are both chilling and illuminating, and make the case that biological and social theories of youth crime are more relevant today than ever before."Ghosts from the Nursery: Tracing the Roots of Violence" reveals shocking new evidence to support the long-held theory that violent behavior is a product of abuse, neglect and lack of bonding during the first two years of life.

In chapter 2, Grand Central: Early Brain Anatomy and Violence, the authors include real-life examples in the form of case histories of children who kill. One example given is that of Jeffrey, who committed a murder when he was 16. He is now 19 and on death row. (Karr-Morse & Wiley, Chapter 2).

Research studies and the opinions of other experts support the authors' thesis. For example, in High Risk Children without a Conscience (1990), the noted authors, Magrid and McKelvey outline the causes and contributors of anti-social personality in children. They maintain that the most important contributor to the incidence of high-risk children is a lack of bonding. The authors state that "it is in the first year of life that a child learns to bond and attach to the primary caregiver (mother) and extends the attachment to the father. Without forming an adequate attachment, the child feels uncared for and lost. Consequently, he becomes hostile and resentful and learns to mistrust those around him. This lack of trust prevents him from learning to care for others and from developing a conscience." (Magrid & McKelvey, 1990). They also point out other areas of concern, such as are a shortage of quality daycare, lack of extended periods of time for maternity leave, foster care, and teenage pregnancy. The authors believe that "day-care is not merely a dilemma in finding satisfactory care, but a part of the problem, since the effects of separation from the mother are a painful burden endured by very young infants and children." Children who have been in and out of different foster homes beginning at an early age, are also at-risk for becoming psychopaths. These "multiple placements are interpreted by the child as rejections." Accompanying the infant day-care crisis and problems with adoptions is the soaring rate of illegitimacy. According to Magrid and McKelvey, "The results of illegitimacy are poverty, quitting school, and child abuse. When the infant becomes the cause of the mother's unhappiness, abuse is often the result." (Magrid and McKelvey, 1990).

Although some analysts still toss around the question of nature vs. nurture, current research seems to be edging out nature and placing much more emphasis on nurture. Another notable expert who agrees with the author's premise is Benjamin B. Wolman. Wolman explores the foundations of deviant behavior in his widely-read book, "Antisocial Behavior: Personality Disorders from Hostility to Homicide," and emphasizes nurture almost to the exclusion of nature, in explaining why sociopaths are more and more prevalent in our society. According to Wolman, "the way that parents rear their children can be crucial. Parental rejection can adversely affect their children's self-confidence and self-reliance. Undeniably, these children will feel neglected and unwanted if their parents are not affectionate and considerate. These children cannot however behave aggressively toward their parents as they fear that they might retaliate. Instead, they behave aggressively toward weak people who are unable to fight back."

The opinions of the experts ring true. A look back over the past two or three decades highlights a vivid timeline of events leading up to today's crisis. Until the late 80s-early 90s, it was most acceptable for mothers to stay home with their children. In the early 80's, this attitude changed. The women's movement stormed upon the scene, bringing with it a tide of divorces, and single-parent households. Ruptures in the family unit and fatherless homes, contributed to a lack of juvenile supervision and spurred an increase in out-of-wedlock births. This period was followed by the thrifty-conscious 90s. By the late 90's, new welfare laws were passed, and low-income moms, who had previously been encouraged to stay on welfare and raise their children, were told they had to go to work.