Heredity and Environmental Effects on Criminal Deviance

Patrick J. Dillon

CJ 5606 Criminological Theories

November 25, 2000

Understanding the cause of criminal behavior is one of the most researched areas of sociological study. For hundreds of years scholars, researchers, and theorists have been trying to unlock the door towards understanding criminal deviance. During the early 1800s through too today’s contemporary usage, many researchers focused their studies in the area of biological and environmental influences as causes or contributors of deviant behavior. One of the most prominent early researchers in this area, his focus on familial studies, particularly the effects of heredity and one’s environment on deviance, was that of R.L. Dugdale. His efforts paved the way for further detailed research in this area that has helped bridge the gap in understanding deviance.

Historical Social and Political Environment

R. L. Dugdale migrated to the United States with his family in the early part of the 19^th century from France. After living in the Midwest for a period of time, he finally settled in New York where he attended Cooper Union College. Shortly after receiving his degree, Dugdale moved into a career in business commerce (Carnes & Garraty, 1999:160). Having prospered in the area of business, he was afforded the opportunity to begin researching his true passion of sociological studies. Dugdale was a reformist, and as such, participated in many social reform clubs which included Officer positions within the Society of Political Education, NY Social Science Society, NY Association for Advancement of Science and the Arts, New York Sociology Club, Society for the Prevention of Street Accidents, NY Liberal Club and the Civil Service Reform Association (Carnes, Garraty, 1999:160).

In 1868 Dugdale received an appointment to the Executive Committee of the Prison Association of New York with the responsibility of inspecting 13 New York prisons. During this assignment Dugdale noticed a number of related inmates many of whom had similar criminal backgrounds. As a result of his observation, he began his research on heredity and the environment's impact on crime, pauperism, and disease. Dugdale’s best known and most influential research is documented in his work published in 1877 titled The Jukes: A Study in Crime, Pauperism, Disease and Heredity. His study, documentation, and final analysis conducted on several generations of the Juke family positioned Dugdale as one of the most prominent international figures in the arena of social reform (Carnes & Garraty, 1999:160).

Early Influences:

Between 1830 and 1880 there was an increased scholarly focus on the pathological explanations of criminal deviance, three of the most noted researchers and most influential to Dugdale’s work being Cesare Lombroso, Louis Agassiz, and Charles Darwin. These and many other theorists set out to prove that deviance was a sickness, not a choice or a result of a particular religious belief. The goal of these researchers was to prove that deviance resulted from physical, mental or emotional abnormalities (Pfohl, 1994:103). Early influences that impacted Dugdale’s research included Cesare Lombroso’s work on the criminal capacity of deviants, in which Lombroso examined brain pathology. Lombroso examined the physical attributes of individuals and concluded that physical degeneration was the cause for criminal behavior. His contributions in providing a pathological explanation for deviance is noted in his book The Criminal Man (1876).

In addition to Lombroso, Louis Agassiz’s work with class structure and his notion of specific diversity added to sociological research during this period. His Essay of Classification (1851) afforded future researchers with a framework to reference while continuing their studies on biological relations to deviant behavior. Finally, arguably the most prominent piece of research at the time and one that has had a profound influence on the field of sociology and ultimately Dugdale’s research, was Charles Darwin’s On the Origins of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859). In summarizing his research, Darwin documented his theory of evolution, natural selection, inherited characteristics, the struggle for life, and the overall assumption that traits were hereditary (Jennings, 1930). Darwin’s conclusions had an overwhelming impact on future research in both the biological and social sciences.

Although Dugdale did not specifically follow the same path of any of these earlier researchers he did use the basis of each scholars findings as evidence to prove or disprove his own assumptions on criminal behavior.

Political Influences:

At the time, the overall focus in sociological research was aligned with the understanding that criminal deviance was determined. Criminals were predisposed to deviance. Near the time of Dugdale’s research, there were several prominent political events that helped further shape the direction and focus of sociological research. First, the Civil War’s end on April 8, 1865, followed shortly with President Lincoln’s assassination and the ultimate abolishment of slavery on December 6, 1865, had a profound impact on sociological research. Almost immediately after these events occurred, the United States experienced a heightened awareness of segregation, an increase in racial disharmony, and the prominent distaste between the North and South. Folks who served in the war or worked as slaves were now free to seek individual prosperity. This influx of people and their limited opportunities for employment added to the overall issue of criminal deviance. Immediately there was an increased focus on finding a correlation between race, poverty, and deviance.

The Industrial Revolution had a major impact on sociological research during this time period. In particular, new social classes were solidified. Terms such as “working class” and “middle class” were coined. Researchers used these classes as opportunities to show causation among classes and concluded that one could predict the probability of deviance depending upon the class structure an individual or group occupied. Additionally, worker’s lives, women’s rights, and the notion of urban and rural living added yet another set of criteria for sociological research.

Finally, as new social classes were defined, there was significant concern with the increased number of people who were mentally challenged. With the new class structure the presence of these individuals became heightened. Political pressure was placed on limiting the effect of these folks on society as a whole. The mentally challenged were portrayed as a threat to society and as such there became a need to place controls over them. Major emphasis was placed on the institutionalized population, and in parallel to Dugdale’s research, several scholars documented research in the area of controlling the mentally challenged. One noted scholar was Frederick Wines who published The Defective, Dependent, and Delinquent Classes of Population (1919). Such research and the overall goal to control this class of society resulted in the US Government passing restrictive legislation on immigration. Additionally, in 1882 the US Government passed the Undesirable Act, which classified types of people who fit into normal society.

Theory Highlights:

As stated, R.L. Dugdale began his study while assigned to the Executive Committee for the New York Prison Association. During his assignment, he observed six inmates all of who through various family relations were blood relatives. It was this initial intriguing observation that fostered Dugdale’s need for further investigation. Immediately, Dugdale began his well-documented research on the Juke family, an alias name for a well-known family of deviants dependent on social welfare and an overall menace to society who lived in the eastern region of New York in Ulster County. Dugdale’s primary objective was to determine if heredity and one’s environment caused or contributed to crime, pauperism, disease and overall social ill. “Dugdale believed that heredity and environment were the two limits within which the whole question of crime, its origin, its nature, and its treatment was contained” (Fink, 1938:79).

Beginning his research, Dugdale stated:

“The nature of the investigation necessitated the study of families through successive generations, to master the full sequence of phenomena and include the entire facts embraced in the two main branches of inquiry into which the subject necessarily divides itself: The Heredity that fixes the organic characteristics of the individual, and The Environment which affects modifications in that heredity” (Dugdale, 1877:12).

His initial research began with a general survey on characteristics within the Juke family to include questions on their heredity, education, intelligence, income and criminal background. Through his initial assumptions he concluded that fornication was the backbone of habits displayed by the Jukes and used the below graph to set a framework for his research (Dugdale, 1877:12). He paralleled fornication with the habits of crime and pauperism and added secondary features as their compliments. He assumed a correlation existed between prostitution and illegitimacy, the results being neglected, uneducated, unaware offspring. He assumed a correlation between exhaustion and intemperance, its results producing the inability to make sound judgements, to think with a clear mind. Finally, he assumed a correlation between disease and extinction, its results devastating to future generations (Dugdale, 1877:12).

(Dugdale, 1877:13)

To verify his assumptions, Dugdale detailed seven generations of Juke family history. He started with “Max” Juke, born in the middle 1700s and the first generation analyzed by Dugdale. Dugdale describes Max as “a hunter and fisher, a hard drinker, jolly and companionable, averse to steady toil” (Dugdale, 1877:14). Dugdale highlights Max’s offspring as a mix of legitimate and illegitimate children to include two sons and six daughters. Because his two sons married two of his daughters, Dugdale focussed on the lineage of the daughters, and created a number of charts based on five of the six daughters, the sixth not traceable as she migrated to another country. Dugdale assigned each a name beginning with the first five letters of the alphabet. The daughters were subsequently called Ada, Bell, Clara, Delia, Effie (a,b,c,d,e) in the study. In total, Dugdale reviewed the history of some 709 individuals along the Juke lineage. Of the 709, 540 were born of Juke blood, 169 entered into the family by marriage (Dugdale, 1877:15). Of the 535 children born, 335 were legitimate, 106 illegitimate, and 84 were of unknown parentage (Dugdale, 1877:26). Through 36 separate case studies on this family, separated in the areas of harlotry, pauperism, and crime, Dugdale was able to maintain the following generalizations:

1. Physical and mental capacity is limited and determined mainly by heredity. Thus, an individual who has physical or mental challenges has a predetermined path.

2. Where one’s individual conduct depends on his or her moral knowledge, the environment has a greater influence than physical or mental capacity.

3. Environment tends to produce habits, which may become hereditary: i.e. pauperism.

4. The tendency of heredity is to produce an environment, which perpetuates that heredity. Correction to this is change of environment.

5. The environment is the ultimate controlling factor in determining one’s path, placing heredity itself as an organized result of invariable environment.

Dugdale died in July of 1883. Throughout his research, he maintained his initial assumptions on heredity and one’s environment. Although I do not believe his research provided conclusive evidence for his assumptions, I do believe Dugdale felt The Jukes (1877) proved a correlation existed. “Heredity and the environment then are the parallels between which the questions of crime and public dependence and their judicious treatment extend”(Dugdale, 1877:12). He determined that heredity and the environment affect society and do in fact impact overall social ill. He further proved that by understanding one’s family background and the surroundings which one is placed or removed, we can make some assumptions on the probability of continued or future criminal activity or need for charitable assistance. He was however, never able to conclusively answer the questions how much crime was a result of heredity and how much resulted from one’s environment.

Dugdale’s research concluded that in parallel, heredity and the environment influence crime, pauperism, disease, and overall social ill. He ended with a note of caution to his readers that his research was general in nature, specific to one family in one environment, and that further research in determining if there is a correlation between heredity and the environment to social issues was needed.

Influenced by and Critics of Dugdale:

After Dugdale’s published results in The Jukes (1877), many researchers used his report to verify their analysis and interpretation of social ill. As read, most took the position that Dugdale’s work produced general scientific evidence that crime, pauperism, and overall social ill was caused through one’s hereditary or surrounding environment. This position did not go without conflict as is stated in Fink’s Causes of Crime: Biological Theories in the United States (1903).

“Perhaps no one book in the field of criminology in America has lent itself to such partisan interpretation as has R. Dugdale’s The Jukes. Unread, misread, or willfully distorted, it has been used by hereditarians and environmentalists alike to assert and supposedly prove their respective positions” (Fink, 1938:179).

Most researchers who continued study in this area took one of three positions with regards to Dugdale’s findings. The majority either align themselves with the notion of heredity as a cause or an additive to crime, the notion of one’s environment as a causation or an additive to crime, and few took a combination of both positions. All agreed that although Dugdale’s research was well documented, most were critical to state that it was too general in nature and that continued, detailed study was needed.

As stated, many theorists and researchers formed the position that Dugdale’s work proved that deviance and overall social ill was handed down from generation to generation. These included Robert Fletcher who, 14 years after The Jukes was published, asserted that there was striking evidence to Dugdale’s summation of hereditary behavior and its accuracy (Fink, 1938:179). Nathan Oppeheim concluded that Dugdale’s work proved that crime was transmitted through heredity. George E. Dawson and M.P.E. Grossmen added that Dugdale’s statistical data established the fact of criminal neurosis (Fink, 1938:180). Although there is no mention of his position on selective breeding, as a result of his research, Dugdale was labeled as the inventor of Eugenic studies, which by definition is the selection, prevention or encouragement of birth for social, racial, or political reasons.

As a result of this labeling, detailed research on both positive and negative Eugenics is attributed to Dugdale’s research. The positive school of Eugenics emphasized the need to breed more quality people. The Negative Eugenic school’s focus was to place limits on continued breeding, the notion that defective people produce more defective people, and the overall goal of limiting or ultimately reducing deviance through control (Fink, 1938:179). The majority of research was conducted in the area of Negative Eugenics and lead people like John Morris to produce his Crime: It’s Physiological and Pathenogenesis: How far can Medical Aid in its Prevention (1889). A smaller, yet important piece of Dugdale’s research on the Jukes was to show the cost of criminal deviance. It was Dugdale’s cost analysis associated with hereditary deviance indentified in The Jukes that Morris used to justify the need to control individuals. This prompted the idea of insuring deviants became asexual. The premise of this thinking was to eliminate sexual desire, thus eliminating deviance. Morris was successful in obtaining the right to use castration as a means for this control in the prison system. Ultimately, sterilization was used as a more humane method for controlling sexual desire and ultimately criminal deviants.

In parallel to the Eugenic or hereditary influence, Dugdale’s research allowed many theorists and scholars to align themselves with Dugdale’s data as proof that one’s surrounding environment has a direct influence on criminal behavior and overall deviance. G. Frank Lydstrom and J.H. Albert asserted that Dugdale’s research confirmed that the environment must be part of the mix and that an individual may be born a degenerate, but under the right conditions, deviant behavior may be modified or ultimately not developed at all (Fink, 1938:180). Furthering the alignment with the environmental conclusion was the research done by Francis Keller who points out that Dugdale’s emphasis on identifying the habitat of the family and the focus on overall living conditions was proof that one’s environment is a contributor to immoral and disgusting behavior (Fink, 1938:181). Henry Goddard used Dugdale’s finding in The Jukes to assist him in his work on The Kallikak Family (1912). Goddard asserted that Dugdale’s work did not prove that hereditary characteristics directly resulted in crime, pauperism, or prostitution but concluded that criminals were made, not born. Finally, there has been a variety of studies on education and its effects on vulgarity, pauperism, and prevention of disease that have been linked back to Dugdale’s The Jukes (Winship, 1925:15).

There are many researchers, although not directly relating there research back to Dugdale, who have continued the research on deviance, heredity and the influence of one’s environment. The Municipal Court of Chicago published a book in 1925 titled Research Studies of Crime As Related to Heredity. The book summarized several expert assumptions on criminal deviance and its link to heredity and environment. One noted expert, Charles W. Burr, M.D., and a Professor of Mental Diseases at the University of Pennsylvania, conducted extensive research in the area of crime, heredity, and environment. His overall focus was to show that mental inheritance was a major factor in understanding deviance, and was so strong in his position he is documented as stating that “the denial of mental inheritance is upheld by the unintelligent” (Municipal Court of Chicago, 1925:67). Burr makes the assumption that we are all not created equally, that in fact physical traits, one’s morals, and an individual’s overall self-control are the direct results of heredity. His research conclusions state:

“Moral sense is present in all persons, education and good environment strengthen it, bad environment can and does destroy it. Criminals are born without capacity to develop social instinct and moral sense and though not responsible, should be segregated for life, or, if they are of the type that murder or commit rape, should be executed because they are a menace to the state and to the race” (Municipal Court of Chicago, 1925:73).

Research conducted by Sarnoff A. Mednick and Karl O. Christiansen documented in their book Biosocial Bases of Criminal Behavior (1977), further document the continued research on heredity and the environment. Mednick and Christiansen conducted more in-depth, detailed research than Dugdale, particularly in the field of psychopathy. The goal of their research was to show a correlation between genetics and psychopathy, and ultimately criminal deviance. Through research conducted on biological and adoptive children, they conclude a correlation does exist between heredity and deviance. In the Origins of Crime, (McCord, McCord & Zola 1959), the authors use the premise of familial structure to add to the notion of heredity and environment’s influence on deviance. They research parental personalities and their effect on children. The authors try to use the child’s family structure and surrounding environment to determine if there exists an influence on criminality. Through detailed review of the parent’s deviance, in parallel with an understanding of the parent’s affection and the surrounding environment, they summarize that lack of intelligence (born and learned), social factors, and physical conditions can add or eliminate to the probability of deviance and conclude that family cohesiveness, consistent discipline, and continued parental affection can limit deviant behavior (McCord, McCord & Zola, 1959:104).

In summarizing, I conclude that Dugdale’s research provided the basic framework for continued research in understanding the relationship between crime, heredity, and one’s environment. As previously stated, Dugdale offers his readers a cautionary statement identifying the need for continued research. For those who used Dugdale’s research as a starting point in trying to understand criminal behavior, the majority conclude that his research was extremely general in conclusion, but agree that Dugdale’s research was the first detailed analysis on the subject, with credible statistical analysis, and was the true basis for continued study.

Contemporary Usage:

Dugdale’s initial findings can be directly attributed to contemporary studies on criminal behavior. In reviewing Dugdale’s work, particularly heredity (biological) and environmental influence on deviance, as it is used today, it is important to reference Nicole Rafter’s book White Trash (1988). In her book, Rafter references 15 family studies, all from various eugenic researchers spanning one hundred years of familial research. She details six of these studies fully and notes that the most influential and most referenced, was R. Dugdale’s The Jukes. Rafter uses this compilation of family studies to validate the correlation between the sciences and social policy. She further summarizes that this compilation, particularly Dugdale’s contributions, has had a profound affect on contemporary research. She notes several areas that have been advance as a result of these familiar (specifically eugenic) studies. These areas include: criminology, criminal justice studies, psychology, psychometry, sociology, and social work (Rafter:1988:30). Rafter states “even though eugenics lost credibility in the 1920s and 1930s, its ideology of natural hierarchy and heredibility of social traits remains healthy today” (Rafter:1988:5). Rafter’s analysis indicates that these early familial studies fostered the need for further understanding of hereditary and environmental impact on deviance. She highlights that in addition to assisting in key research areas, this initial set of familiar research help shape and determine key legislation on social policies. These policies included: crime control, education, drug consumption, marriage and birth control, mental retardation, physically challenged people, welfare and sterilization. She concludes that the initial researchers, although scientifically challenged, “explored issues of fundamental and enduring concerns: The relationship between humans and nature, biology and society, heredity and the environment, and the meaning of evolution” (Rafter:1988:30). She felt these initial familial studies set the stage for greater, more scientific research.

Diana Fishbein, Director of the Transdisciplinary Behavioral Science Program at the Research Science Institute presented a dynamic summary on the important usage of the biological perspective in contemporary research. Fishbein was able to identify that in order for researchers to understand anti social behavior and ultimately deviant behavior, one must use a compilation of perspectives. These perspective include not only sociological and political research, they must include an understanding and use of behavioral sciences (Fishbein:1). She felt this compilation of knowledge who advance the understanding of deviance and was critical towards affect criminological research. Fishbein further highlights the increased focus on behavioral sciences and documents several key areas that when paralleled with political and sociological research, underscore a clearer understanding anti social behavior. The behavioral science areas Fishbein identifies include: genetics, physiological psychology, psychopharmacology, and endocrinology (Fishbein:2).

As stated, there is a need for combined research to understand anti social behavior and ultimately the causation for deviance. Fishbein stresses the increased focus in the areas of genetics, biochemistry, endocrinology, and immunology and how each area of research, combined with other areas of research are moving researchers closer to understanding and predicting deviance. She further validates the importance of using a biological perspective by documenting the role biological conditions have in impacting deviant behavior. She notes that temper outbursts, sociopathy, hyperactivity, delinquency, attention deficit disorders, cognitive disorders, violence, aggression, and psychopathy all can be linked to anti social behavior and deviance (Fishbein:6).

Fishbein also identifies the environmental role in understanding anti social behavior. She references the many studies that continue in the area of diet, environmental toxins, neighborhood conditions, and television's impact. She concluded that these outside research, paralleled with biological and behavioral issues, influence anti social behavior. This in turn may lead to behavioral issues and eventually towards criminal behavior.

As with Fishbein, Elliot Currie, Professor of the Legal Studies Program at the University of Berkley, through his research shows a correlation between biology, one’s environment, and deviance. Currie stresses the need for continued study in the understanding and prevention of crime through continued research with biologic and environmental influences. Currie documents in his Crime and Punishment in America (1998), the need to focus on children and their early development. In understanding the biological, environmental, and educational needs, Curries summarizes four ways to prevent crime from occurring:

1. (Environment) Prevention of Child Abuse/Neglect

2. (Biological/Physiological) Early intervention for children at risk of impaired cognitive development, behavior problems, and early failure in schools

3. (Educational) Invest in programs for vulnerable adolescents that build educational and training skills.

4. Focus on reform

(Currie, 1998:pg 82-104)

Currie continues his research on the environmental factors and documents the need for continued focus on social classes. He draws attention to the inequality among social classes, and concludes that social expulsion and deprivation impact deviance. He, like Dugdale and Fishbein conclude that there are multiple variables that influence the probability of deviance.

Another focus of contemporary research that can be attributed to the Jukes study conducted by Dugdale is in the area known as Environmental Criminology. Paul and Patricia Brantingham highlight in there book Environmental Criminology (1991) the understanding that Environmental Criminology brings together key dimensions needed to understand criminal deviance: offender, victim, and laws in the particular setting at the time of criminal deviance occurs. They further explain that researchers uses Environmental Criminology methods then uses historical and situational circumstances surrounding the offender and victim’s social, economic, political, biological, and physical characteristics to understand the causation of deviance. Again, understanding one’s environment to help realize the causation of criminal deviance (Brantingham & Brantingham:1991:2).

Finally, the work completed by Albert J. Reiss, Department of Sociology Chairman, Yale University and Jeffery A. Roth, Principal Staff Officer for the Panel on Understanding Violence and the Control of Violent Behavior highlight the environmental and biological influences on deviant and violent behavior. As documented in their book Understanding and Preventing Violence (1993), to understanding deviance and its causation researchers need to look at a variety of areas. This is consistent with Fishbein’s documented research in which she uses both environmental and biological areas of research to help define antisocial behavior and ultimately the causation for criminal behavior. This set of scholars, Fishbein, Reiss, and Roth detail the need to look at a variety of areas having biological and environmental influences in understanding deviance. They include but are not limited to gender, ethnic status, socioeconomic status coupled this with genetic or biological factors (Reiss & Roth:1991:191).

Although Dugdale’s research offered archaic and limited scientific evidence that heredity and one’s environment influence criminal behavior and many argue that his findings were subject to criticism, it was this initial research that has set the path for contemporary scholars and researchers to continue with more detailed analysis of the causation of criminal behavior. It is without reservation that I state that R.L. Dugdale helped paved the way in the area of environmental, hereditary, and biological research and scholars like Fishbein, Reiss, Roth, and a host of others are better positioned today in trying to understand criminal behavior as a result of Dugdale’s initial efforts.

Bibliography

Brantingham, Paul J. and Patricia L. (1991, January). Environmental Criminology. Prospect Heights, Illinois:Waveland Press.

Carnes, Mark C. and John A. Garraty. (1999). American national biography. New York: Oxford University Press

Christiansen, Karl O. and Sarnoff A. Mednick. (1977). Biosocial bases of criminal behavior. New York: Gardner Press Inc.

Currie, Elliott. (1998). Crime and punishment in America. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Darwin, Charles. (1859). On the origins of species by means of natural selection. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

Dugdale, R. L. (1877). The Jukes: A study in crime, pauperism, and heredity. New York: Putnam.

Fink, Arthur E. (1903). Causes of crime: Biological theories in the United States. New York: A.S. Barnes, 1962, c1938.

Fishbein, Diana. (2000). Contemporary biological and integrated perspectives. Florida State University Criminal Justice Lecture Notes. http://connected2.fsu.edu/courseinfo/ccj5606/week5.htm

Haller, Mark. (1983). Eugenics: Hereditarian attitudes in American thought. Rutgers University Press.

Goddard, Henry Herbert. (1866-1957). The Kallikak family.

North Strafford, NH: Ayer Company Publishers, c2000

Jennings, Herbert Spencer. (1868-1947). The biological basis of human nature. New York: Norton

Lykken, David T. (1995, November). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

McCord, Joan and William McCord, and Irvin K. Zola. (1959). Origins of crime. New York: Columbia University Press.

McCulloch, Oscar. (1888). The Tribe of Ishmael; A study in social degradation. Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Correction.

Morris, John. (1889, April). Crime: It’s physiological and pathenogenesis: How far can medical aid in its prevention. Maryland Medical Journal, xx

Municipal Court of Chicago. (1928). Research studies of crime as related to heredity. Chicago: James T. Igoe Company Printers.

Rafter, Nicole Hahn. (1988). White trash: The eugenic family studies, 1877-1919. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Reiss, Albert J. and Jefferey A. Roth. (1996). Understanding and preventing violence. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Wilson, James Q. (1985). Crime and human nature. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Winship, Albert E. (1900) Heredity: A history of Jukes-Edwards families. Boston: Journal of Education.