Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window

Journal Article 1: Walsh, A. (1995). Genetic and cytogenetic intersex anomalies: Can they help us to understand gender differences in deviant behavior? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 39, 151-166.

Abstract: Across time and national boundaries males have been shown to be far more socio-legally deviant than females. Sociological criminology’s faith in environmentalism has thwarted its efforts to provide theoretically meaningful explanations of this phenomenon. Biocriminality begins with the assumption that the neurohormonal differences between men and women have a lot to tell us about behavioral differences between the sexes as they apply to crime and deviance. This article examines the relatively scarce literature on psychosocial behavioral patterns of various genetic and cytogenetic anomalies (pseudo-hermaphrodites) arrayed on a continuum from the most “feminine” to the most “masculine.” Behavioral pathologies of all kinds follow the general pattern: Turner’s syndrome = androgen insensitivity syndrome normal female congenital adrenal hyperplasia females normal male Klinefelter’s syndrome XYY syndrome. As in other scientific fields, severe departures from the norm may go a long way in helping us to define what the norm is.

Journal Article 2: Rose, N. (2000). The biology of culpability: Pathological identity and crime control in a biological culture. Theoretical Criminology, 4, 5-34.

Abstract: This article considers the impact of the new biological criminology on control strategies. Biocriminology does not purport to have a general explanation for crime, but draws upon contemporary human genetics and neurobiology to account for what is represented as a growing social problem of violent and anti-social conduct. Jurisprudential notions of free will and responsibility are not being displaced by genetic essentialism in the courtroom, where the tendency is for an increased emphasis upon moral responsibility of all offenders for their actions. However, in other areas of the criminal justice system, we are seeing the emergence of new conceptions of the individual “genetically at risk” of offending, and the development of crime prevention strategies based upon a rationale of public health. This is not a new eugenics, but a control strategy that aims to identify, treat and control individuals predisposed to impulsive or aggressive conduct. The implications of the new biological criminology may be seen in the form of genetic discrimination, genetic screening in risk assessments and the use of quasi-consensual “treatment” for supposed biological tendencies, as conditions for a non-custodial sentence, loss of employment or denial of insurance or other benefits. The search for biological dispositions may also play a part in the increased use of preventive detention and other pre-emptive interventions for “the protection of the public” against those whose conduct seems to show wanton disregard for the moral constraints on the conduct of free individuals in a liberal society.