4.2 Crime in the Brain
When positivism emerged, many scientists and philosophers studied biological features, structures, and how they influence behavior. In the earliest departure from the classical school assumptions, criminologists wanted to understand how individual traits might explain why some people committed crimes and others did not. The idea that genetics, biological makeup, and the brain determined one’s criminality became a major assumption in the early and mid-1800s.
One biological explanation that found its footing at this time was the idea of moral insanity, which referred to habitual, uncontrollable criminality committed without motive or remorse. The three earliest proponents of this concept were Philippe Pinel in France, Benjamin Rush in the United States, and James Cowles Prichard in England (Rafter, 2004).
Pinel was the medical director of two asylums in France. He was interested in finding medical causes of moral insanity and was very careful about applying the scientific method as precisely as possible. In his 1801 book, Treatise on Insanity, he labeled five types of mental illness, including melancholy, dementia, idiocy, and madness with and without delirium.
Working during this same time and with similar interests was American physician Benjamin Rush. He is credited with developing a model of mental and moral functioning. In his 1812 book, Medical Inquiries and Observations, Upon the Diseases of the Mind, he described moral faculty as the ability to both distinguish between good and evil and to choose good. According to Rush, individuals suffer from either anomia, or total moral depravity, in which both the moral faculty and the conscience stopped functioning; or micronomia, a partial weakness of the moral faculty in which the individual remains aware of their wrongdoing.
James Cowles Prichard built on both of these earlier concepts in his 1835 publication, A Treatise on Insanity and Other Disorders Affecting the Mind. According to Prichard, the causes of criminal behavior and poor moral judgment are psychological and either inherited (biological) or from brain damage. In fact, he advocated for compassion and reform in the treatment of those with mental illness, including those who committed crimes.
This is a bold move away from the classical school of criminology because it indicates that the foundational concepts of deterrence will not actually prevent or stop crime. If some people are simply born or through trauma become unable to think rationally, they will not be able to weigh costs and benefits. Basically, Pinel, Rush, and Prichard believed and promoted that criminal behavior was not a decision, but was predetermined due to abnormal biology. They advocated for individualization of treatment, institutionalization, and other forms of care, not punishment.
Craniometry and Phrenology
Following the new ideas about mental capabilities came a movement to better understand the brain itself. Two scientific studies became popu