11 ms·

Crime is a Family Affair

78 points by whocansay 8y ago

tomlock 8y ago
> as the University of Maryland criminologist John Laub told me, it’s because any suggestion of a possible biological or genetic basis for crime could be misconstrued as racism. Or, it is because biological and genetic factors aren't as powerful at predicting crime as other factors. The idea that crime runs in families indicates a biological factor in crime is nonsense. Families and children that start in lower deciles of wealth are likely to stay there. Social mobility is awful.
- Loughla 8y ago
  Trying to say that crime is biological is just a classic example of misunderstanding correlation and causation at best, and an attempt to justify hate speech at worst. You're 100% spot on that it's not biological, but more than likely just a result of the other factors associated with class and access to wealth.
  - nostromo 8y ago
    It's ridiculous how quickly some are to wave away all of biology in favor of the blank slate theory. Yes, nurture matters, but so does nature. Declaring this settled science "an attempt to justify hate speech" is laughable.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      There is no "settled science" establishing a genetic determinant for crime. The person speaking in absolute terms and "waving away" thing is you, with your invocation of an absolute "blank slate theory".
      - nostromo 8y ago
        I'm not saying one can read their DNA and determine if they will commit crime or not. But there are a lot of inherited traits that absolutely could lead one to be more likely to get involved in crime. Things like fight vs flight response, risk tolerance, extroversion/introversion, etc. Saying "You're 100% spot on that it's not biological" is really absurd. Nothing about humans is 100% non biological. That absolutism is exactly blank slate theory.
        tptacek 8y ago
        In context, the sentiment that you're replying to is discussing a criminologist's concern that a genetic basis for criminality --- which, again, there is no "settled science" to suggest exists at all --- would be construed as racism. At best, you're making the same hyperbolic argument you're complaining about, just in the opposite direction.
        nostromo 8y ago
        Except I'm not. I specifically called out that genetics and environment are both important, in response to someone who declared that genetics play no role whatsoever -- and that arguing otherwise is engaging in hate speech.
        tptacek 8y ago
        You're not even reading the original comment you're replying to accurately, let alone charitably. They said that arguing for biological determinants of crime is at worst a justification for hate speech, not that it automatically is. And it's clear that pleading to biological causes for criminality is often a rationale to justify racism, so they're not wrong.
        nostromo 8y ago
        If bad people use the results of good science for bad reasons, then attack those people, not the science itself. We can't close our eyes and ears and pretend that genetics plays no role in society (including issues of violence, crime, mental health, addiction, etc).
      - PeterisP 8y ago
        IMHO it's misleading to say "There is no "settled science" establishing a genetic determinant for crime." - while it's debatable how large that component is, there certainly is evidence that it's very unlikely to be zero. In particular, the following factors are both quite correlated with crime (and in a way where it's reasonable to assume causation) and also are known to be somewhat heritable: a) mental disorders such as psychopathy; b) being prone to addiction; c) general impulse control and risk-seeking behavior. Given the available evidence, it would be wrong to assume an absolute lack of relationship between your genes and propensity to crime, there clearly is some (though not necessarily large) genetic determinant for crime - all other things being equal, some newborn babies are a bit more likely than others to go on and commit crimes when they grow up.
        tptacek 8y ago
        Your first two factors are straightforward to concede, but then you add a question-begging (c) that is (1) much more difficult to agree with and (2) happens to be heavily tied up with the same racist rhetoric† the comment upthread is cautioning about. (You also conflate heritability with genetic determinism). My issue isn't with the claim that there is likely some genetic connection to crime. Clearly, in some extreme cases, there is. My issue is with the extrapolation from extreme cases and from very un-settled science to broad claims about genetic determinism (and supposed unwillingness of others to entertain those claims). † I'm not saying you're using racist rhetoric, I'm saying you're using rhetoric that is also leaned on by racists; for instance, "black people have a genetic predisposition to high time preference".
        PeterisP 8y ago
        The (c) is not colloquial question-begging (or at least not intended so), these aspects (risk-seeking behavior and impulse control) are very specific personality traits that are measurable and have been studied quite much, as they are important for sociology, behavioral economics, etc. These personality traits (like most personality traits, really) have a clear genetic component. I would consider this as settled science. For a single example, studies show that varieties of dopamine receptor D4 gene (DRD4) influence financial risk-taking propensity, impulsivity (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1781951/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1781951/), and pathological gambling. As far as we assume causal relationship from impulsivity and pathological gambling to risk of crime (likely there are studies for that, but I'm not going to look now, this seems a reasonable assumption), this implies that this is one more (of many!) genetic factors that have some (small) influence on the likelihood of committing crimes. Coming back to your specific objections, can you elaborate the what your issue is with "broad claims about genetic determinism" here? I'm not seeing any serious claims of actual genetic determinism (i.e. that it's "all nature") in this thread, I'm only seeing objections to a "no nature" argument, claims that there is no genetic component. The current established scientific opinion is that the vast majority of personality traits are determined by genetic factors (including e.g. epigenetics) and environmental/social factors and individual variation, with all of these influences being intertwined and each of them constituting a major part of the influence. And this is not limited to extreme cases (i.e. particular genetic disorders), but to all the normal variation of human behavior.
  - lmaximus1983 8y ago
    No it isn't. There deffo is some sort of component to it. I have never met my Grandfather and Uncle that were thieves and another was a sex offender. I do however like mischief and I love the feeling of thieving stuff. I used to work in Gambling and absolutely loved the idea of taking money from other people. I also have a lot of affiliate sites and I feel like I am stealing that money. However to say it is 100% one or the other is also garbage. It is another nature vs nurture argument. Also "Hate Speech" is another way of saying I don't have an argument. It is just a way of saying "You are bad because I don't like what you are saying". This term is destroying my country (people in the UK have been imprisoned because they have posted rap lyrics on facebook). https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/23/she-posted-rap-lyrics-to-remember-a-dead https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/23/she-posted-rap-lyrics-to-... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11013426/Rappers-lyrics-result-in-arrest-and-eventual-conviction.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921
- pmjordan 8y ago
  Surely it's not just wealth though - if kids grow up in a family environment where breaking the law is normal, I'd very much expect that to affect their attitudes differently than if they grow up in a law-abiding family.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    Given the wealth disparity in some places it is actually surprising how law abiding most people are. Keep in mind that the rich have a disproportionate effect in making the laws in the first place.
- dec0dedab0de 8y ago
  The idea that crime runs in families indicates a biological factor in crime is nonsense. Yes, but it does suggest it is a possibility. I thought it was a common belief that genetics play a part in addiction, and mental illness. I do agree that socioeconomic factors are most likely the biggest contributor, the movie Trading Places convinced me of that at a young age. I just think it would be foolish to dismiss genetics completely.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    > I do agree that socioeconomic factors are most likely the biggest contributor, the movie Trading Places convinced me of that at a young age. This is an interesting thing to admit. What is the evidentiary value of a fictional movie?
    - dec0dedab0de 8y ago
      Probably the same as any fable or faery tale. It presents the idea that people are a product of their environment, which is a fairly easy concept to believe. Also when I said young, I meant like 5 or 6, I was not considering "evidentiary value." Though for what it's worth, my experiences have pretty much backed this up.
- iguy 8y ago
  We have numbers on this sort of thing. Here are some Swedish adoption studies (they track everyone) which, from a first glance, support the usual rule of half-half: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4009388/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4009388/ http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2012.11.001 http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2012.11.0... I can't now find the (also Swedish I think) study I remember, which managed to look at families who'd got suddenly rich between the 1st son & the 2nd son.
  - nostromo 8y ago
    There was a seminal study in the US of twins who were adopted (and raised) by different parents. This of course is an amazing natural experiment to see if genes or parenting is the cause of important personality traits. The study "found that an identical twin reared away from his or her co-twin seems to have about an equal chance of being similar to the co-twin in terms of personality, interests, and attitudes as one who has been reared with his or her co-twin. This leads to the conclusion that the similarities between twins are due to genes, not environment, since the differences between twins reared apart must be due totally to the environment." So, yes, genes clearly matter. This is a very unfashionable finding currently in the US, but the science is clear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Twin_Family_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Twin_Family_Study
    - jaccarmac 8y ago
      Keep in mind that study used an existing registry of twins. Families who adopt are not necessarily representative of the wider population.
    - Steko 8y ago
      > a very unfashionable finding currently in the US, but the science is clear. The science is not really that clear. Tyler Cowen [1] refers us to Jay Joseph [2] who refers us to other critics of "twins reared apart" ("TRA") studies: Critics, however, have pointed to several key methodological problems with TRA studies (TRA study critics include Farber, 1981; Joseph, 2001, 2004, 2010; Kamin, 1974; Kamin & Goldberger, 2002; Lewontin, Rose, & Kamin, 1984; Taylor, 1980). These problems include (a) the doubtful “separation” of twins, who frequently grew up together and had contact over much of their lives, (b) similarity bias in the methods of MZA identiﬁcation and recruitment, (c) the questionable status of “intelligence” and “personality” as valid and quantiﬁable constructs, (d) the failure of the MISTRA researchers to publish or share raw data and life history information for the twins under study, and (e) the impact that the researchers’ bias in favor of genetic interpretations may have had on their results and conclusions. and continues: While these and other issues are important, the main problem with TRA studies such as Bouchard’s MISTRA is clear: the investigators used the wrong control group (MZTs). By using MZTs as controls, they failed to control for several key environmental factors shared by both MZA and MZT pairs (see Joseph, 2004; Rose, 1982). Environmental inﬂuences shared by both MZAs and MZTs include but are not limited to the following: • They are exactly the same age (birth cohort). • They are always the same sex. • They are almost always the same ethnicity. • Their appearance is strikingly similar (which will elicit more similar treatment from the social environment). • They usually are raised in the same socioeconomic class. • They usually are raised in the same culture. • They shared the same prenatal environment. • Most studied pairs spent a certain amount of time together in the same family environment, were aware of each other’s existence when studied, and often had regular contact over long periods of time (Farber, 1981; Kamin, 1974). So maybe twin studies aren't the slam dunk they are often presented as. [1] http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/02/wha.. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/02/wha.... [2] http://jayjoseph.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Claims_and.. http://jayjoseph.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Claims_and.... Also referenced by Cowen: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag.. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag.... http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/econ/archive/wp2001-08.pdf http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/econ/archive/wp2001-08.pdf
- frank_nitti 8y ago
  Seriously. I would say that also applies over to the author's claim that "doctors produce doctors, lawyers produce lawyers", etc. Sure, kids whose parents/relatives have forged a career in a particular industry have a much easier time making their way in, I would seriously doubt that genetics are a major factor other than general cognitive ability.
  - PeterisP 8y ago
    IIRC studies about career choice imply that "doctors produce doctors, lawyers produce lawyers" is somewhat true, however, not because ability (there was no evidence that there's much specialized ability, someone who has the qualities where they're likely going to be a good doctor is also likely to be a good lawyer and vice versa), but because career choice is highly influenced by the options you consider, by the choices that seem "normal" in your community, and that is highly influenced by having parents/relatives in that field.
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    General cognitive ability is a pretty big contributor to social and professional success but so is conscientiousness. To a lesser extent so are extraversion, (a lack of) neuroticism and work ethic, all of which are heritable. Family trades are a big thing but even absent that social status is highly heritable in every society Gregory Clarke looked at in England, the United States, Sweden, India, China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and Chile. A doctor’s children may have divergent status but their children and grandchildren will look more similar, on average, as n increases the variance will decrease. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Son_Also_Rises_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Son_Also_Rises_(book)
patrickmay 8y ago
The article traces the Bogle's family start in crime back to the Prohibition era. While there are, of course, a host of reasons why people become criminals, ridiculous laws are a contributing factor. The War on (some) Drugs is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results. It's well past time to end it, along with the human devastation it causes.
- random023987 8y ago
  While the War on (Americans who use (some)) Drugs is a decades-long tragedy whose human costs dwarf most natural disasters, it's pretty clear the goals of US drug policy aren't to reduce criminal activity, but instead explicitly criminalize what may consider a personal choice. Given that minimizing criminal activity isn't a concern isn't a goal, what incentive is there to change the policy? Saying that the war on drugs causes more harm than drugs is obvious, but repeatedly pointing that out and expecting policy to change hasn't worked for a long time.
  - imesh 8y ago
    It has been working, just not quickly. Weed is legal across the whole west coast.
    - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
      Pseudo-legal. It's still illegal in the whole country, but federal law enforcement is giving a pass in states that have removed state level laws against it.
  - fjsolwmv 8y ago
    The opiod crisis challenges the notion that lax drug laws would be an improvement. In USA, there are 2million people in prison/jail right now, and 2million people with an opiod use disorder. https://www.hhs.gov/opioids/about-the-epidemic/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/opioids/about-the-epidemic/index.html
- panzagl 8y ago
felonthrowaway1 8y ago
Felon here. Like the article describes, my father was arrested and jailed, and his father before him. Many of my family have spent time in prison. When I turned 18, I also shared the same experience. Less than a year in min security prison. Now I'm 35, moved away from my troubled youth, and have made millions of dollars building startups. A few points: - To this day, I am terrified to speak to police or any authority figures. I sweat every time I pass through passport control when my wife and I go to Europe every summer. - I can't break my "guarded" way of thinking, that everyone is out to get me, that I need to take what I can when I have the chance because the chance won't come around again. I am never relaxed. - I have a 4 year old and not a day goes by that I don't spend working with him to provide things I never had. The fact that I can afford to send him to piano lessons or that we can afford to live in the "rich" part of town makes me emotional. - I lost every part of my childhood. My parents are ghosts and my friends from then are long sense forgotten. Some people go back to their home town to feel nostalgic, but all I do is feel anger. I am angry every day. - Many people are afraid to take risks for their careers, but as an ex-convict who spent over a year as a homeless person, I feel no fear. Moving across the country when I have no money, sleeping at my desk to launch a product due the next day, giving a speech in front of 1000 people, or aggressively gunning for a better company is nothing compared to begging someone for their half eaten sandwich. That's true fear. Even the ones who escape a criminal family never really escape.
- notafelonthrow 8y ago
  My father is a felon, and his father before him, and most of my uncles (one is even a convicted murderer). I didn't follow in their footsteps -- never even gotten so much as a speeding ticket. The funny thing is I can completely relate. I had to cut off my father's family from my life to escape; all police make me nervous as I think they will arrest me; every interaction I have with non-best-of-friends is "fuck you, I'm getting mine". I'm not sure how many generations it takes to escape the mentality, but I'm hoping my sons aren't the same way.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- 8y ago
lmaximus1983 8y ago
Err nope. My Grandfather was a sex offender and my Uncle is a convicted Armed Bank Robber. The rest of the family has their problems like all families do. Mostly recovering from abuse of the previous two guys. What is a bigger problem (especially in the UK) is welfare dependence which does become a family thing.
- abhchand 8y ago
  > Err nope. This is kind of a flippant dismissal based on the multiple findings backed up by numbers. Yours may be an anecdotal story (and not my place to comment on) but there's no evidence that welfare dependence causes crime. It seems to be more of a political talking point. There may very well be a correlation, but it doesn't imply causation.
  - lmaximus1983 8y ago
    Sorry welfare dependence does cause crime. Almost all of my step family on the Isle of Wight (this in the UK) are doing this along with most of their friends. I know what I saw with my own eyes. I know what some women have said "I can get X amount if I have another kid". I also know that almost all of my step brothers and step sisters abuse the welfare system mainly by having children with other people. Telling me that it doesn't happen, when I know it blatantly does and then telling me it doesn't because of some academic release that for all we know probably hasn't been peer reviewer properly. A slight aside ... some dudes managed to get Mein Karph through peer review recently by changing the wording slightly. Also guess the arrest rate for my step family? The first day I met them they got arrested. Every-time I hear something about them one of them or their mates or both have got arrested. You know what the connecting thing is ... they are all on welfare and their parents were drunks and lived off of welfare on the Island because there are no jobs.
    - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
      The poster above was respectful that they would not comment on your experiences, merely that a single persons experiences does not defy statistical data results. To argue further with more personal experiences does not adequately address the concern...
cat199 8y ago
"Yet, despite the abundance of evidence showing the role of family in crime, criminologists and policymakers have largely neglected this factor—as the University of Maryland criminologist John Laub told me, it’s because any suggestion of a possible biological or genetic basis for crime could be misconstrued as racism." How exactly does a family connection imply a biological basis? Did nature defeat nurture when I wasn't looking? or is this just a poorly written sentence implying that connecting the two could then result in ascribing the trait to biology, and so was avoided?
- macintux 8y ago
  > How exactly does a family connection imply a biological basis? ...because most families have a biological connection? I don't believe it's poorly written, but the truth is closer to your third question. Race is a very touchy subject, especially when it comes to crime, and making it known that you're looking into something that could lead to biological/genetic assertions about criminality is a good way to draw unpleasant attention.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- wahern 8y ago
  > Did nature defeat nurture when I wasn't looking? Yes, some people are convinced nature trumps nurture: https://quillette.com/2018/09/25/forget-nature-versus-nurture-nature-has-won/ Such people are why we can't have adult conversations without an exhaustive, preambulatory ritual re-establishing baseline assumptions. And even then people (of all stripes) will willfully misconstrue you, especially if you don't pepper your assertions with limiting and contextualizing language.
rdtsc 8y ago
> a possible biological or genetic basis for crime could be misconstrued as racism. But what if it is isn't and it is something like impulsivity? I know someone who worked for a large state prison system for many years. They've observed one common trait of the majority of people incarcerated is that they are very impulsive. They react rather than think things through. Often they regret the crime, but could be too late by then [+]. However the same impulsivity is also a trait of someone we might consider a "hero". Say someone jumping into the river or a fire to rescue a person, a salesperson quickly responding to a customer need and so on. Someone quickly responding and standing up to a bully to defend someone being abused. At the genetic level it could be the same low level drive, but family, society and culture have a chance of molding that into either something good or destructive. [+] There is a lot to be said there for the society and the correctional system being punitive and not much correctional per se, and mental illness playing large role as well but that's for a different post perhaps.
- roywiggins 8y ago
  Lead exposure in children can cause ADHD and developmental delays. Other things can probably permanently affect your neurology as you're growing up and appear heritable because a family stays in the same place with the same economic conditions over generations. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=34&po=10 https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=34&po=10
- tclancy 8y ago
  Yeah, I found that strange. One of the things that stuck with me from reading "How Children Succeed"[0] was that violence/ crises in the household tend to make kids impulsive and short-sighted in decision making. The idea kids who grow up around criminal parents would wind up doing the same because of modeling and the likelihood of violence or other frightening events like being put in foster care makes sense to me and doesn't have to have a biological underpinning to be true. [0] http://www.paultough.com/the-books/how-children-succeed/ http://www.paultough.com/the-books/how-children-succeed/
  - PeterisP 8y ago
wahern 8y ago
> “We need another solution,” [Judge Norblad] told me, “something to separate Bogle family members so they will not keep reinfecting themselves.” Norblad, who died in 2014, did not know how to do that. Once upon a time judges could kick offenders out of their jurisdiction or a state entirely. I think this was eventually deemed unconstitutional, though I can't find any on-point caselaw and suspect it simply fell out of favor and assumed unconstitutional. IIRC the closest scholarly analysis I could find at the time (~10 years ago) discussed a governor's right to impose conditions on a pardon, and in particular the condition that one leave the state, which concluded that it was probably still constitutional because of how extensive is the pardon power. In the 1960s or 1970s a relative of mine was kicked out of Wisconsin by an exasperated judge after drunkly shooting up a yacht in search of rumored hidden money; receiving a suspended sentence as long as he never set foot in Wisconsin again. He was happy to leave and both he and Wisconsin were probably the better for it. He was only in Wisconsin temporarily so it's not like Wisconsin exported its problems, either. EDIT: 2013 Slate article on banishment and exile: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/01/banishment-as-punishment-is-it-constitutional-for-states-to-exile-criminals.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/01/banishment-as-pu...
- barrow-rider 8y ago
  I know at least one dude banned from the city of Richmond. Anecdotally it worked, and he's now quite a successful programmer, married, kids, decent house, etc.
slv77 8y ago
Odd how many parallels this has to the “Jukes family” study that was used to justify eugenics. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jukes_family https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jukes_family

78 points by whocansay 8y ago

> as the University of Maryland criminologist John Laub told me, it’s because any suggestion of a possible biological or genetic basis for crime could be misconstrued as racism. Or, it is because biological and genetic factors aren't as powerful at predicting crime as other factors. The idea that crime runs in families indicates a biological factor in crime is nonsense. Families and children that start in lower deciles of wealth are likely to stay there. Social mobility is awful.

Loughla 8y ago
Trying to say that crime is biological is just a classic example of misunderstanding correlation and causation at best, and an attempt to justify hate speech at worst. You're 100% spot on that it's not biological, but more than likely just a result of the other factors associated with class and access to wealth.
- nostromo 8y ago
  It's ridiculous how quickly some are to wave away all of biology in favor of the blank slate theory. Yes, nurture matters, but so does nature. Declaring this settled science "an attempt to justify hate speech" is laughable.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    There is no "settled science" establishing a genetic determinant for crime. The person speaking in absolute terms and "waving away" thing is you, with your invocation of an absolute "blank slate theory".
    - nostromo 8y ago
      I'm not saying one can read their DNA and determine if they will commit crime or not. But there are a lot of inherited traits that absolutely could lead one to be more likely to get involved in crime. Things like fight vs flight response, risk tolerance, extroversion/introversion, etc. Saying "You're 100% spot on that it's not biological" is really absurd. Nothing about humans is 100% non biological. That absolutism is exactly blank slate theory.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        In context, the sentiment that you're replying to is discussing a criminologist's concern that a genetic basis for criminality --- which, again, there is no "settled science" to suggest exists at all --- would be construed as racism. At best, you're making the same hyperbolic argument you're complaining about, just in the opposite direction.
        nostromo 8y ago
        Except I'm not. I specifically called out that genetics and environment are both important, in response to someone who declared that genetics play no role whatsoever -- and that arguing otherwise is engaging in hate speech.
        tptacek 8y ago
        You're not even reading the original comment you're replying to accurately, let alone charitably. They said that arguing for biological determinants of crime is at worst a justification for hate speech, not that it automatically is. And it's clear that pleading to biological causes for criminality is often a rationale to justify racism, so they're not wrong.
        nostromo 8y ago
        If bad people use the results of good science for bad reasons, then attack those people, not the science itself. We can't close our eyes and ears and pretend that genetics plays no role in society (including issues of violence, crime, mental health, addiction, etc).
    - PeterisP 8y ago
      IMHO it's misleading to say "There is no "settled science" establishing a genetic determinant for crime." - while it's debatable how large that component is, there certainly is evidence that it's very unlikely to be zero. In particular, the following factors are both quite correlated with crime (and in a way where it's reasonable to assume causation) and also are known to be somewhat heritable: a) mental disorders such as psychopathy; b) being prone to addiction; c) general impulse control and risk-seeking behavior. Given the available evidence, it would be wrong to assume an absolute lack of relationship between your genes and propensity to crime, there clearly is some (though not necessarily large) genetic determinant for crime - all other things being equal, some newborn babies are a bit more likely than others to go on and commit crimes when they grow up.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        Your first two factors are straightforward to concede, but then you add a question-begging (c) that is (1) much more difficult to agree with and (2) happens to be heavily tied up with the same racist rhetoric† the comment upthread is cautioning about. (You also conflate heritability with genetic determinism). My issue isn't with the claim that there is likely some genetic connection to crime. Clearly, in some extreme cases, there is. My issue is with the extrapolation from extreme cases and from very un-settled science to broad claims about genetic determinism (and supposed unwillingness of others to entertain those claims). † I'm not saying you're using racist rhetoric, I'm saying you're using rhetoric that is also leaned on by racists; for instance, "black people have a genetic predisposition to high time preference".
        PeterisP 8y ago
        The (c) is not colloquial question-begging (or at least not intended so), these aspects (risk-seeking behavior and impulse control) are very specific personality traits that are measurable and have been studied quite much, as they are important for sociology, behavioral economics, etc. These personality traits (like most personality traits, really) have a clear genetic component. I would consider this as settled science. For a single example, studies show that varieties of dopamine receptor D4 gene (DRD4) influence financial risk-taking propensity, impulsivity (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1781951/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1781951/), and pathological gambling. As far as we assume causal relationship from impulsivity and pathological gambling to risk of crime (likely there are studies for that, but I'm not going to look now, this seems a reasonable assumption), this implies that this is one more (of many!) genetic factors that have some (small) influence on the likelihood of committing crimes. Coming back to your specific objections, can you elaborate the what your issue is with "broad claims about genetic determinism" here? I'm not seeing any serious claims of actual genetic determinism (i.e. that it's "all nature") in this thread, I'm only seeing objections to a "no nature" argument, claims that there is no genetic component. The current established scientific opinion is that the vast majority of personality traits are determined by genetic factors (including e.g. epigenetics) and environmental/social factors and individual variation, with all of these influences being intertwined and each of them constituting a major part of the influence. And this is not limited to extreme cases (i.e. particular genetic disorders), but to all the normal variation of human behavior.
- lmaximus1983 8y ago
  No it isn't. There deffo is some sort of component to it. I have never met my Grandfather and Uncle that were thieves and another was a sex offender. I do however like mischief and I love the feeling of thieving stuff. I used to work in Gambling and absolutely loved the idea of taking money from other people. I also have a lot of affiliate sites and I feel like I am stealing that money. However to say it is 100% one or the other is also garbage. It is another nature vs nurture argument. Also "Hate Speech" is another way of saying I don't have an argument. It is just a way of saying "You are bad because I don't like what you are saying". This term is destroying my country (people in the UK have been imprisoned because they have posted rap lyrics on facebook). https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/23/she-posted-rap-lyrics-to-remember-a-dead https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/23/she-posted-rap-lyrics-to-... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11013426/Rappers-lyrics-result-in-arrest-and-eventual-conviction.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921
pmjordan 8y ago
Surely it's not just wealth though - if kids grow up in a family environment where breaking the law is normal, I'd very much expect that to affect their attitudes differently than if they grow up in a law-abiding family.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  Given the wealth disparity in some places it is actually surprising how law abiding most people are. Keep in mind that the rich have a disproportionate effect in making the laws in the first place.
dec0dedab0de 8y ago
The idea that crime runs in families indicates a biological factor in crime is nonsense. Yes, but it does suggest it is a possibility. I thought it was a common belief that genetics play a part in addiction, and mental illness. I do agree that socioeconomic factors are most likely the biggest contributor, the movie Trading Places convinced me of that at a young age. I just think it would be foolish to dismiss genetics completely.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  > I do agree that socioeconomic factors are most likely the biggest contributor, the movie Trading Places convinced me of that at a young age. This is an interesting thing to admit. What is the evidentiary value of a fictional movie?
  - dec0dedab0de 8y ago
    Probably the same as any fable or faery tale. It presents the idea that people are a product of their environment, which is a fairly easy concept to believe. Also when I said young, I meant like 5 or 6, I was not considering "evidentiary value." Though for what it's worth, my experiences have pretty much backed this up.
iguy 8y ago
We have numbers on this sort of thing. Here are some Swedish adoption studies (they track everyone) which, from a first glance, support the usual rule of half-half: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4009388/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4009388/ http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2012.11.001 http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2012.11.0... I can't now find the (also Swedish I think) study I remember, which managed to look at families who'd got suddenly rich between the 1st son & the 2nd son.
- nostromo 8y ago
  There was a seminal study in the US of twins who were adopted (and raised) by different parents. This of course is an amazing natural experiment to see if genes or parenting is the cause of important personality traits. The study "found that an identical twin reared away from his or her co-twin seems to have about an equal chance of being similar to the co-twin in terms of personality, interests, and attitudes as one who has been reared with his or her co-twin. This leads to the conclusion that the similarities between twins are due to genes, not environment, since the differences between twins reared apart must be due totally to the environment." So, yes, genes clearly matter. This is a very unfashionable finding currently in the US, but the science is clear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Twin_Family_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Twin_Family_Study
  - jaccarmac 8y ago
    Keep in mind that study used an existing registry of twins. Families who adopt are not necessarily representative of the wider population.
  - Steko 8y ago
    > a very unfashionable finding currently in the US, but the science is clear. The science is not really that clear. Tyler Cowen [1] refers us to Jay Joseph [2] who refers us to other critics of "twins reared apart" ("TRA") studies: Critics, however, have pointed to several key methodological problems with TRA studies (TRA study critics include Farber, 1981; Joseph, 2001, 2004, 2010; Kamin, 1974; Kamin & Goldberger, 2002; Lewontin, Rose, & Kamin, 1984; Taylor, 1980). These problems include (a) the doubtful “separation” of twins, who frequently grew up together and had contact over much of their lives, (b) similarity bias in the methods of MZA identiﬁcation and recruitment, (c) the questionable status of “intelligence” and “personality” as valid and quantiﬁable constructs, (d) the failure of the MISTRA researchers to publish or share raw data and life history information for the twins under study, and (e) the impact that the researchers’ bias in favor of genetic interpretations may have had on their results and conclusions. and continues: While these and other issues are important, the main problem with TRA studies such as Bouchard’s MISTRA is clear: the investigators used the wrong control group (MZTs). By using MZTs as controls, they failed to control for several key environmental factors shared by both MZA and MZT pairs (see Joseph, 2004; Rose, 1982). Environmental inﬂuences shared by both MZAs and MZTs include but are not limited to the following: • They are exactly the same age (birth cohort). • They are always the same sex. • They are almost always the same ethnicity. • Their appearance is strikingly similar (which will elicit more similar treatment from the social environment). • They usually are raised in the same socioeconomic class. • They usually are raised in the same culture. • They shared the same prenatal environment. • Most studied pairs spent a certain amount of time together in the same family environment, were aware of each other’s existence when studied, and often had regular contact over long periods of time (Farber, 1981; Kamin, 1974). So maybe twin studies aren't the slam dunk they are often presented as. [1] http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/02/wha.. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/02/wha.... [2] http://jayjoseph.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Claims_and.. http://jayjoseph.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Claims_and.... Also referenced by Cowen: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag.. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag.... http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/econ/archive/wp2001-08.pdf http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/econ/archive/wp2001-08.pdf
frank_nitti 8y ago
Seriously. I would say that also applies over to the author's claim that "doctors produce doctors, lawyers produce lawyers", etc. Sure, kids whose parents/relatives have forged a career in a particular industry have a much easier time making their way in, I would seriously doubt that genetics are a major factor other than general cognitive ability.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  IIRC studies about career choice imply that "doctors produce doctors, lawyers produce lawyers" is somewhat true, however, not because ability (there was no evidence that there's much specialized ability, someone who has the qualities where they're likely going to be a good doctor is also likely to be a good lawyer and vice versa), but because career choice is highly influenced by the options you consider, by the choices that seem "normal" in your community, and that is highly influenced by having parents/relatives in that field.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  General cognitive ability is a pretty big contributor to social and professional success but so is conscientiousness. To a lesser extent so are extraversion, (a lack of) neuroticism and work ethic, all of which are heritable. Family trades are a big thing but even absent that social status is highly heritable in every society Gregory Clarke looked at in England, the United States, Sweden, India, China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and Chile. A doctor’s children may have divergent status but their children and grandchildren will look more similar, on average, as n increases the variance will decrease. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Son_Also_Rises_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Son_Also_Rises_(book)

patrickmay 8y ago

The article traces the Bogle's family start in crime back to the Prohibition era. While there are, of course, a host of reasons why people become criminals, ridiculous laws are a contributing factor. The War on (some) Drugs is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results. It's well past time to end it, along with the human devastation it causes.

random023987 8y ago
While the War on (Americans who use (some)) Drugs is a decades-long tragedy whose human costs dwarf most natural disasters, it's pretty clear the goals of US drug policy aren't to reduce criminal activity, but instead explicitly criminalize what may consider a personal choice. Given that minimizing criminal activity isn't a concern isn't a goal, what incentive is there to change the policy? Saying that the war on drugs causes more harm than drugs is obvious, but repeatedly pointing that out and expecting policy to change hasn't worked for a long time.
- imesh 8y ago
  It has been working, just not quickly. Weed is legal across the whole west coast.
  - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
    Pseudo-legal. It's still illegal in the whole country, but federal law enforcement is giving a pass in states that have removed state level laws against it.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  The opiod crisis challenges the notion that lax drug laws would be an improvement. In USA, there are 2million people in prison/jail right now, and 2million people with an opiod use disorder. https://www.hhs.gov/opioids/about-the-epidemic/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/opioids/about-the-epidemic/index.html
panzagl 8y ago

felonthrowaway1 8y ago

Felon here. Like the article describes, my father was arrested and jailed, and his father before him. Many of my family have spent time in prison. When I turned 18, I also shared the same experience. Less than a year in min security prison. Now I'm 35, moved away from my troubled youth, and have made millions of dollars building startups. A few points: - To this day, I am terrified to speak to police or any authority figures. I sweat every time I pass through passport control when my wife and I go to Europe every summer. - I can't break my "guarded" way of thinking, that everyone is out to get me, that I need to take what I can when I have the chance because the chance won't come around again. I am never relaxed. - I have a 4 year old and not a day goes by that I don't spend working with him to provide things I never had. The fact that I can afford to send him to piano lessons or that we can afford to live in the "rich" part of town makes me emotional. - I lost every part of my childhood. My parents are ghosts and my friends from then are long sense forgotten. Some people go back to their home town to feel nostalgic, but all I do is feel anger. I am angry every day. - Many people are afraid to take risks for their careers, but as an ex-convict who spent over a year as a homeless person, I feel no fear. Moving across the country when I have no money, sleeping at my desk to launch a product due the next day, giving a speech in front of 1000 people, or aggressively gunning for a better company is nothing compared to begging someone for their half eaten sandwich. That's true fear. Even the ones who escape a criminal family never really escape.

notafelonthrow 8y ago
My father is a felon, and his father before him, and most of my uncles (one is even a convicted murderer). I didn't follow in their footsteps -- never even gotten so much as a speeding ticket. The funny thing is I can completely relate. I had to cut off my father's family from my life to escape; all police make me nervous as I think they will arrest me; every interaction I have with non-best-of-friends is "fuck you, I'm getting mine". I'm not sure how many generations it takes to escape the mentality, but I'm hoping my sons aren't the same way.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
8y ago

lmaximus1983 8y ago

Err nope. My Grandfather was a sex offender and my Uncle is a convicted Armed Bank Robber. The rest of the family has their problems like all families do. Mostly recovering from abuse of the previous two guys. What is a bigger problem (especially in the UK) is welfare dependence which does become a family thing.

abhchand 8y ago
> Err nope. This is kind of a flippant dismissal based on the multiple findings backed up by numbers. Yours may be an anecdotal story (and not my place to comment on) but there's no evidence that welfare dependence causes crime. It seems to be more of a political talking point. There may very well be a correlation, but it doesn't imply causation.
- lmaximus1983 8y ago
  Sorry welfare dependence does cause crime. Almost all of my step family on the Isle of Wight (this in the UK) are doing this along with most of their friends. I know what I saw with my own eyes. I know what some women have said "I can get X amount if I have another kid". I also know that almost all of my step brothers and step sisters abuse the welfare system mainly by having children with other people. Telling me that it doesn't happen, when I know it blatantly does and then telling me it doesn't because of some academic release that for all we know probably hasn't been peer reviewer properly. A slight aside ... some dudes managed to get Mein Karph through peer review recently by changing the wording slightly. Also guess the arrest rate for my step family? The first day I met them they got arrested. Every-time I hear something about them one of them or their mates or both have got arrested. You know what the connecting thing is ... they are all on welfare and their parents were drunks and lived off of welfare on the Island because there are no jobs.
  - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
    The poster above was respectful that they would not comment on your experiences, merely that a single persons experiences does not defy statistical data results. To argue further with more personal experiences does not adequately address the concern...

cat199 8y ago

"Yet, despite the abundance of evidence showing the role of family in crime, criminologists and policymakers have largely neglected this factor—as the University of Maryland criminologist John Laub told me, it’s because any suggestion of a possible biological or genetic basis for crime could be misconstrued as racism." How exactly does a family connection imply a biological basis? Did nature defeat nurture when I wasn't looking? or is this just a poorly written sentence implying that connecting the two could then result in ascribing the trait to biology, and so was avoided?

macintux 8y ago
> How exactly does a family connection imply a biological basis? ...because most families have a biological connection? I don't believe it's poorly written, but the truth is closer to your third question. Race is a very touchy subject, especially when it comes to crime, and making it known that you're looking into something that could lead to biological/genetic assertions about criminality is a good way to draw unpleasant attention.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
wahern 8y ago
> Did nature defeat nurture when I wasn't looking? Yes, some people are convinced nature trumps nurture: https://quillette.com/2018/09/25/forget-nature-versus-nurture-nature-has-won/ Such people are why we can't have adult conversations without an exhaustive, preambulatory ritual re-establishing baseline assumptions. And even then people (of all stripes) will willfully misconstrue you, especially if you don't pepper your assertions with limiting and contextualizing language.

rdtsc 8y ago

> a possible biological or genetic basis for crime could be misconstrued as racism. But what if it is isn't and it is something like impulsivity? I know someone who worked for a large state prison system for many years. They've observed one common trait of the majority of people incarcerated is that they are very impulsive. They react rather than think things through. Often they regret the crime, but could be too late by then [+]. However the same impulsivity is also a trait of someone we might consider a "hero". Say someone jumping into the river or a fire to rescue a person, a salesperson quickly responding to a customer need and so on. Someone quickly responding and standing up to a bully to defend someone being abused. At the genetic level it could be the same low level drive, but family, society and culture have a chance of molding that into either something good or destructive. [+] There is a lot to be said there for the society and the correctional system being punitive and not much correctional per se, and mental illness playing large role as well but that's for a different post perhaps.

roywiggins 8y ago
Lead exposure in children can cause ADHD and developmental delays. Other things can probably permanently affect your neurology as you're growing up and appear heritable because a family stays in the same place with the same economic conditions over generations. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=34&po=10 https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=34&po=10
tclancy 8y ago
Yeah, I found that strange. One of the things that stuck with me from reading "How Children Succeed"[0] was that violence/ crises in the household tend to make kids impulsive and short-sighted in decision making. The idea kids who grow up around criminal parents would wind up doing the same because of modeling and the likelihood of violence or other frightening events like being put in foster care makes sense to me and doesn't have to have a biological underpinning to be true. [0] http://www.paultough.com/the-books/how-children-succeed/ http://www.paultough.com/the-books/how-children-succeed/
- PeterisP 8y ago

wahern 8y ago

> “We need another solution,” [Judge Norblad] told me, “something to separate Bogle family members so they will not keep reinfecting themselves.” Norblad, who died in 2014, did not know how to do that. Once upon a time judges could kick offenders out of their jurisdiction or a state entirely. I think this was eventually deemed unconstitutional, though I can't find any on-point caselaw and suspect it simply fell out of favor and assumed unconstitutional. IIRC the closest scholarly analysis I could find at the time (~10 years ago) discussed a governor's right to impose conditions on a pardon, and in particular the condition that one leave the state, which concluded that it was probably still constitutional because of how extensive is the pardon power. In the 1960s or 1970s a relative of mine was kicked out of Wisconsin by an exasperated judge after drunkly shooting up a yacht in search of rumored hidden money; receiving a suspended sentence as long as he never set foot in Wisconsin again. He was happy to leave and both he and Wisconsin were probably the better for it. He was only in Wisconsin temporarily so it's not like Wisconsin exported its problems, either. EDIT: 2013 Slate article on banishment and exile: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/01/banishment-as-punishment-is-it-constitutional-for-states-to-exile-criminals.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/01/banishment-as-pu...

barrow-rider 8y ago
I know at least one dude banned from the city of Richmond. Anecdotally it worked, and he's now quite a successful programmer, married, kids, decent house, etc.

slv77 8y ago

Odd how many parallels this has to the “Jukes family” study that was used to justify eugenics. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jukes_family https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jukes_family