Gautam Naik provides an interesting and cleverly written piece on the search for a biological basis of violent behavior.
If you want to have fodder for controversial cocktail conversation, take a look also at an old book by James Q. Wilson and Richard Herrnstein on the biology of criminal behavior.
(Hat tip: Daniel Lippman)
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Shouldn’t the Italian court have increased the penalty to someone with a “disposition” to violence? If prison is to rehabilitate it seems like it would take longer. If it is to deter crime it would need to be harsher to overcome the bias. Finally, if it is to protect society then keeping someone more likely to commit violent acts locked up would seem prudent.
Interested readers might also want to know about some related research on the biological basis of large-scale human violence; see Stephen P. Rosen, War and Human Nature (Princeton University Press, 2004), http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=war+and+human+nature&x=0&y=0
Eric raises an interesting point. Should someone with a disposition to commit crime be given a lighter or a heavier sentence. A related discussion is whether someone who has had a rough childhood should get off easy. I tend to take the conservative view that each of us is responsible for his own actions. But it is hard not to feel sympathy for a kid who gets involved in a gang (and ultimately crime) because he feels physically threatened if he does not. It’s easy to point fingers if you haven’t had to deal with those kind of pressures.
Just to stir the pot a little, Larry Arnhart wrote a book, “Darwinian Natural Right”, that takes this a bit further, arguing that there are at least twenty natural desires that are universal to all human societies because they are based in human biology, the need for war/violence being just one…
Even if Dr. Fallon’s study showed conclusive evidence of biological and physical factors which directly correlate to the predisposition or tendency of a person to want to kill people, (or commit violent acts on others) it does not address the issue of choice.
Generally, a serial killer chooses his or her victims. After the choice is made, the killer generally commits the crime outside the view of others, then hides evidence of the crime. Serial killers (with some exceptions, of course) do not kill every person they meet. They often maintain a job, a family, and church or community ties. They even choose to hide the desire to kill.
So my question is, why should evidence of a tendency merit consideration in the punishment of the crime if the killer (or violent offender) has the capacity to choose NOT to commit a crime? When we reduce a sentence or absolve a person of a crime it is often because a person was so gravely affected by a defect, disease or situation that they are incapable of rational choice.
Understanding the critical factors which may contribute to a person’s tendency to want to stalk, torture, and kill people is an important endeavor. However, evidence of the tendency does not seem to merit absolution or sentence reduction.
Ask any farmer why they castrate all the male animals and order semen by mail. Male Testosterone poisoning explains it all.
No woman ever said, “Watch this; hold my beer.”
Dear Eric;
You have a point except, we humans are not cattle. if you read Max Weber carefully- it’s the women who are the more aggressive ones–not towards sons, but daughters-
When I got the strap as a kid- my father performed the deed, but my mom told him to do it. Go figure. So as far as I am concerned, the existence of a biological basis for human behavior is not a matter of fate. With some understanding, we can alter our fate. My dad did.
Sociobiology is a very interesting topic with large ramifications. I agree with a daughter and socioligist–the point of sociobiology is to create self-awareness. If you become more aware of the motivating factors that cause you to want to behave in a certain way, it allows you the ability to make a more conscious choice.
—a past anthropologist and current law researcher