Synopsis of Incident Starting from October 2nd through October 22nd, 2002, a total of 10 fatalities were committed by John Allen Mohammad and his younger 17-year-old counterpart, Lee Boyd Malvo. This case quickly became a public crisis because of the sporadicness of the killings, the lack of specificity to race, gender, or age, and the increased rampage in the DMV area. All killings were fulfilled using a Bushmaster.223 caliber rifle out of the back of a blue Chevy Caprice. Ultimately, both perpetrators were convicted to life in prison without parole, while Mohammad was put on death row and executed on November 10th, 2009. What was highly striking was how a 17-year-old was found guilty of taking the lives of most of the victims and what were …show more content…
Bearing that in mind, the biological factors attributed to this are genetic makeup, hormones, physical health, and IQ. Criminological theory, explicitly Cesare Lombroso's biological positivism theory, denotes that a person is or is not born a criminal. While this has mostly been disproven, there remain fragments from his theory that current criminologists have built upon. In connection to Lee Boyd Malvo specifically, there is a strong argument for his underdeveloped prefrontal cortex and his actions; thus, the lack of decision-making skills, impulse control, and emotional control contribute to a higher likelihood of committing devious acts (Ling et al., 2019). Adding onto that, possessing an abnormal amygdala can also affect decision-making and escalate depression and anxiety. In the present case of Malvo, it is known that he was severely abused during childhood, which could have contributed to obtaining a traumatic brain injury, which would have resulted in a damaged amygdala (Ling et al., 2019). Dr. Jonathan H. Mack, a forensic neuropsychologist and expert witness who published The Making of Lee Boyd Malvo: The D.C. Sniper in 2012, states that it should be taken into account that because Malvo was still a child, his personality and ego were underdeveloped, it was simpler for Mohammad to mold him because of impressionability (Mack & …show more content…
The relationship between one's development, especially during the formative years, strongly correlates to later criminal behavior. As explained by researcher Hee-Soon Juon, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University, who wrote Childhood Behavior and Adult Criminality: Cluster Analysis in a Prospective Study of African Americans, states that components such as disrupted family dynamics and abnormal behavior have a heavy influence on criminality later in life. (Juon et al., 2006). As noted previously, Malvo was exposed to an unstable environment throughout his life, abuse, and no parental figures. Honing in on his mental state, Malvo was diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder. DID and RAD are the direct result of neglect and abuse in extreme cases. The lack of support and love Malvo faced throughout his life caused early onset depression, while the dissociation was his only way of distancing himself from his harsh life. His attachment disorder is highly correlated with his clinging to Mohammand because, for Malvo, essentially, no one stayed around long enough. When he did become attached sooner or later, they exited his life. This factor made him highly vulnerable to Moahhamad, mainly because he acted as an older father figure, which was never granted to him. To him, Mohammad was the way out, a sense of structure after
In my opinion, the author defends a good but also complex perspective. '' The criminal activity itself should be taken as evidence of brain abnormality'', says Eagleman, however, what about the percentage of criminals that are not carriers of the genes that contribute to performing violent crimes? Are they going to be sent to rehabilitation too and exonerated from incarceration even when there is proof of no brain
Many influences may push young people such as Lee Boyd Malvo to perform violent acts. Psychological, sociological and biological factors play a coexisting role in young adults life. Violence can be caused by disruptions, damage or undeveloped brain or can be brought on by something else such as economic difficulties or social or cultural difficulties. The nature vs. nurture question has been an ongoing debate. It can be argued that John lee Malvo born with predetermined genes or biological factors that played an integral part in creating his homicidal tendencies or that he become murderous through his surroundings partnered by the psychological influence that Mohammed had over him.
Malvo was born in Jamaica on February 18, 1985. He grew most of his childhood in Jamaica, but since his father was absent in his life, his mother had to live Malvo in care of others. He constantly moved around and had little to no supervision during this period of time in his life. He eventually made his way to the United States even went to high school for a little bit. He eventually ended up in a homeless shelter in Washington were he and Muhammad began to develop their disturbing relationship. It was during his time at the homeless shelter the enraged Muhammad became attached to Malvo and became a father figure to him. Muhammad began to control every aspect of Malvo life. Muhammad, who was an expert marksman in the military, trained Malvo how to shoot. Muhammad spent hours training Malvo how to
This topic is crucial when considering the decision to penalize a criminal for a felony. Scientifically speaking, there is a difference between the brains of individuals, causing some people to be more aggressive than others. As Gazzaniga (2005) states in his book, "Whether through neurochemical imbalances or lesions, brain function can become distorted, perhaps explaining certain violent or criminal behavior" (p.89). If all people with such neurochemical imbalances displayed similar types of behavior, the conclusion would be obvious. However, not all people who have lesions or schizophrenia are violent. (Gazzaniga, 2005, p.95) An inconsistency in behavioral outcomes requires an alternate explanation of the concept of free will. Some philosophers criticize neuroscientists, arguing that, according to the article Neuroscience vs. Philosophy, "researchers have not quite grasped the concept that they say they are debunking" (Neuroscience vs. Philosophy: Taking an Aim at free will, 2011). In order to fully understand the concept of free will, it must be understood from synthesizing lessons from human experiences. Aristotle spoke of an internal moral compass that all humans possess; one that guides the concept of what is good (Eshleman, 2014, p.3). It becomes a necessity to compile the scientific perspective of a moral dilemma with the philosophical perspective in order to draw a reasonable
The case of whether serial killers are born with the lust to kill or if they are truly victims of their environment has been a hot debated question by both psychologists and the FBI today. A serial killer is traditionally defined as one that kills 3 or more people at different times with “cooling off” periods in between kills. Both psychological abuse as a child and psychological disorders are to blame for the making of a killer. The nature vs. nurture debate is best applied to the mysterious behaviors and cases of serial killers and their upbringing and environment. Nature is the genetic and biological connections a person has, personality traits, and how genetic make-up all relates to a killer. Nurture is examining the upbringing and environment that a person is around that affects what a person becomes. In some cases however, the effects of only upbringing or only biological problems were the reasons certain serial killers committed crimes. Although there is no definitive answer to what plays the bigger role: nature or nurture, they both are contributing factors that make a serial killer. These deviants of society are afflicted with problems in either their upbringing or have psychological disorders, and are able to blend into our everyday lives with no apparent differences, yet they wreck havoc through their unremorseful killings.
In the field of Criminology, our job is to attempt to explain and understand why some people commit crimes and others do not. Using the psychological, sociological, or psychiatric approach can help to conclude as to why an individual committed a crime can do this. However, in this paper, the psychological approach will be used to illustrate why Rie Fujii starved and killed her two kids in 2001. Psychological theories of crime focus on how mental processes impact individual’s propensities for violence. In further, the association between learning, intelligence, and personality and violence behavior is studied.
Serial killers are defined to “be driven by instinct and desire to kill.” In a study done in 2000, Dr, Richard Davidson says, “people with a large amount of aggression – in particular people who have committed aggressive murders or have a social disorder – have almost no brain activity in the orbital frontal cortex or the anterior cingulated cortex while activity in the amyglade continued perfectly. The orbital frontal cortex and the anterior congulated cortex control emotional impulses while the amyglade controls reactions to fear.” Davidson concludes his research claiming that although environment can and will affect a serial killer’s thoughts, it is a killer’s genetic makeup that inevitably creates murderous thoughts.
To begin with, numerous reasons for why a child acts in the manner he exhibits and why he continues to exert such dangerous and even fatal schemes. Recent research shows that factors ranging from inherited personality traits to chemical imbalances and damages suffered in the womb can increase the odds that a child will become violent (Johnson 234). Experts argue that no one is predestined to a life of crime. They believe that influences such as repeated abuse, extreme neglect, poverty, media violence, and easy access to guns play the major role in molding children into criminals. The father of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer wonders, "If potential for evil is in the blood that some of us pass on to our children" (Seifert 23).
Many studies suggest that there are significant differences in the brain between individuals who possess antisocial personality disorder (psychopathy). While not all people who possess an antisocial personality disorder will become serial killers, every serial killer studied has an antisocial personality disorder; “Neuropsychological testing revealed abnormalities in all subjects tested” (Blake, Pincus, and Buckner 1642). Brain injury, brain abnormalities, or mental illness affects all the serial killers tested. Even if all serial killers had some type of abnormality in the brain, would that mean that they were doomed to become a serial killer? According to the experimental findings discussed in Neurologic Abnormalities in Murderers; 64.5% of serial killers have a frontal lobe dysfunction and 29% have temporal lobe abnormalities. The frontal lobes of the brain “control the essence of our human...
Over the years, the theory has evolved into today’s foremost biological crime theory. The theory takes into account genetics and disorders that may be inherited. One example of a disorder that is genetic is antisocial personality disorder. This specific disorder is accompanied by a variety of side effects, some of which may result in psychopathic or sociopathic behavior. Psychopathic and sociopathic behavior specific to this example would be murder. Jeffrey Dahmer, for example, was an individual that participated in seventeen murders over a span of thirteen years. Although Dahmer was not able to plead insanity, he still had a severe mental disorder that may be partly to blame for some of his actions. Biological disorder is often difficult to back up due to the fact that many disorders are also based on nurturing
The nurturing of individuals plays a role in the making of killers, as 94% of serial killers had experienced some form of abuse as children and 42% have suffered severe physical abuse (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2010). A child abuse is a determining factor, in which supports the idea that serial killers and psychopath, are influenced significantly by nurture (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2011). In most cases social, cultural and physiological determinants all play a role in influencing serial killers to grow into a mass murderer. It is important that physiological and social determinants can be identified, so they could be altered for the purpose of preventing the number of crime.
Advances in technology began the interest in the possibility of crime being related to genetics. As technology continues to thrive, the stronger the argument becomes that criminal behavior is caused by genetic make-up. In a Wall Street Journal article of April 27, 2013 Stanton Samenow states, “Brain-imaging techniques are identifying physical deformations and functional abnormalities that predispose some individuals to violence.” The article hails the rising field of “neurocriminology” as revolutionizing our understanding of violent behavior. Neorocriminology and biocriminology go hand-in-hand, both involving studying the physical and mental elements in crime an...
It is a fact that criminals have a smaller brains than law abiding citizens. Often, offenders share particular physical traits such as, being young males, muscular, having lower than average IQ, and a impulsive personality. Serial offenders are usually hyperactive and difficult children If a person has a low IQ, it is proven to be directly related to their tendency to be commit impulse actions that provide an immediate payoff. For instance, a rape or a mugging would provide a criminal with an immediate payoff. It is proven that crime often runs in families. In fact, chronic criminals are proven to be three times more likely to have criminal children. However, despite this information, scientists have no basis to come to any conclusions with this data. Therefore, one must consider other possible factors that may create a criminal mind, to come to a reasonable decision as to how one is developed.
One of the many reasons for this particular issue is the bias views on exactly what is crime. A crime is said to be “an act, or the omission of an act, that is a violation of a federal, state, or local criminal law for which the state can apply sanctions” (Mooney p112). Particularly, “the offender must have acted voluntarily and with intent and have no legally acceptable excuse or justification for their behavior” (Mooney p112). “Some explanations of crime focus on psychology aspects of the offenders, such as psychopathic personalities, unhealthy relationships with parents, and mental illness. Other crime theories focus on the role of biological variables, such as central nervous system malnutrition, stress hormones, vitamin or mineral deficiencies, chromosomal abnormalities, and a genetic predisposition toward aggression” (Mooney
These theories represent part of the classic psychological debate, nature versus nurture. Are individuals predisposed to becoming a criminal or are they made through their environment. There are various theories within the biological explanation as to why individuals commit criminal behaviour, these include: genetic theory, hereditary theory, psychosis and brain injury theory. In the next few paragraphs examples of each will be shown. The first theory to be explored is the hereditary theory, which stems from Cesare Lombroso (1876) father of criminology, (Feldman, 1993) whose studies were carried out by morphology.