Jeffrey Landrigan Case Study

You may have always wondered if there was a correlation between social behaviour and biological functioning. At the back of my mind I am reminded of the almighty biblical “freewill” as a tool to readjust the resultant antisocial behaviour. With the human species it is difficult to assume 100% causal relationship hence it is safe to look at mediating factors that result in a person's antisocial behaviour. Barnes et al (2016) suggests that if one is to gain a greater understanding of Antisocial behaviours one must look at several domains and they include Evolutionary criminology, Biological criminology, Behaviour genetics, Molecular genetics and Neurocriminology. However, on the predictive side, increasingly, studies are examining whether the

He was nevertheless a particularly troublesome child from the beginning. This behaviour progressed from temper tantrums at 2years of age, abusing alcohol at 10years of age, being arrested for burglary at 11years of age, abusing drugs as a teenager, to killing his first victim at the age of 20years. After escaping from prison, he perpetrated his second killing and was sentenced to death. While he was on death row in Arizona for this second homicide, another death-row inmate noticed an eerie resemblance between Landrigan and Darrel Hill, an inmate he had met on death row in Arkansas. It transpired that Hill was the biological father of Landrigan — a father Landrigan had never met. Hill, like his son Landrigan, was a career criminal who also abused drugs and also killed twice. Hill’s father — Landrigan’s grandfather — was also an institutionalized criminal who had been shot to death by police. Landrigan’s great-grandfather was a notorious bootlegger. Hill had seen Landrigan only briefly as he hid two .38 pistols and the narcotic medicine Demerol under his baby son’s mattress — an action that was unintentionally prophetic of Landrigan’s future drug abuse and violence. As a fourth-generation criminal, Landrigan’s case documents not just the intergenerational transmission of violence but also illustrates how the adoption design separates the genetic influences of the biological parents

He chose the treatment programme but was expelled after propositioning female staff. The night before he was due to be transported to prison, he went to the emergency room complaining of a severe headache. There he continued to solicit sexual favours from staff. An astute neurologist ordered an MRI scan after Michael wet his trousers without showing any apparent concern. The MRI revealed a tumour growing from the base of the orbitofrontal cortex. After the tumour was resected, Michael’s behaviour returned to normal, and he was reunited with his wife and stepdaughter. After several months of normal behaviour, his wife discovered child pornography on his computer. Michael was re-examined, and it was discovered that the tumour had regrown. It was resected for a second time, and for at least 6years after the resection Michael’s behaviour has returned to normal. The case comes almost as close as one can get to a causal connection between ventral prefrontal brain pathology and deviant behaviour — a pendulum moving from normality to brain dysfunction to paedophilia to neurosurgery to normality, and back again. In the face of the order in which events occurred, was Michael responsible for his inappropriate sexual behaviour with his stepdaughter?”

Even though I believe that we are responsible for our actions and the resultant rewards or punishment, there is a need to “treat” the offender looking at other domains