 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
173
the verbal items of intelligence tests than on the nonverbal items but is usually below average on both.
190 17 Criminologists have long known about the correlation between criminal behavior and
I.Q., but many
of them have discounted it for various reasons. Some have suggested that the correlation can he
195 explained away by the association between low socioeconomic status and crime, on the one hand, and that
between low
I.Q. and low socioeconomic status, on the other. These criminologists say it is low
socioeconomic status, rather than low I.Q., that fosters crime. Others have questioned whether I.Q. tests
200really measure intelligence for the populations that are at greater risk for breaking the law. The low scores
of offenders, the argument goes, betray a culturally deprived background or alienation from our society's
values rather than low intelligence. Finally, it is often noted that the offenders in some studies have been
caught for their crimes. Perhaps the ones who got away have higher I.Q.s.
205
18 But these objections have proved to be less telling than they once seemed to be. There are, for
example, many poor law-abiding people living in deprived environments, and one of their more salient
210 characteristics is that they have higher I.Q. scores than those in the same environment who break the law.
19 Then, too, it is a common misconception that
I.Q. tests are invalid for people from disadvantaged
backgrounds. If what is implied by this criticism is that scores predict academic potential or job
215 performance differently for different groups, then the criticism is wrong. A comprehensive recent survey
sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that «tests predict about as well for one group
as for another». And that some highly intelligent criminals may well be good at eluding capture is fully
220 consistent with the belief that offenders, in general, have lower scores than nonoffenders.
20 If I.Q. and criminality are linked, what may explain the link? There are several possibilities. One is
that low scores on I.Q. tests signify greater difficulty in grasping the likely consequences of action or in
225 learning the meaning and significance of moral codes. Another is that low scores, especially on the verbal
component of the tests, mean trouble in school, which leads to frustration, thence to resentment, anger and
delinquency. Still another is that persons who are not as skillful as others in expressing themselves verbally
230 may find it more rewarding to express themselves in ways in which they will do better, such as physical
threat or force.
21 For some repeat offenders, the predisposition to criminality may be more a matter of temperament
235 than intelligence. Impulsiveness, insensitivity to social mores, a lack of deep and enduring emotional
attachments to others and an appetite for danger are among the temperamental characteristics of high-rate
offenders. Temperament is, to a degree, heritable, though not as much so as intelligence. All parents know
240 hat their children, shortly after birth, begin to exhibit certain characteristic ways of behaving — they are
placid or fussy, shy or bold. Some of the traits endure, among them aggressiveness and hyperactivity,
although they change in form as the child develops. As the child grows up, these traits, among others, may
245 gradually unfold into a disposition toward unconventional, defiant or antisocial behavior.
22 Lee Robins, a sociologist at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, reconstructed
30 years ofthe lives of more than 500 children who were patients in the 1920's at a child guidance clinic in
250 St. Louis. She was interested in the early precursors of chronic sociopathy, a condition of antisocial
personality that often includes criminal behavior as one of its symptoms. Adult sociopaths in her sample
who did not suffer from psychosis, mental retardation or addiction, were, without exception antisocial
255 before they were 18. More than half of the male sociopaths had serious symptoms before they were 11. The
main childhood precursors were truancy, poor school performance, theft, running away, recklessness,
slovenliness, impulsiveness and guiltlessness. The more symptoms in childhood, the greater the risk of
260 sociopathy in adulthood.
23 Traits that foreshadow serious, recurrent criminal behavior have been traced all the way back to
behavior patterns such as hyperactivity and unusual fussiness, and neurological signs such as atypical brain
265 waves or reflexes. In at least a minority of cases, these are detectable in the first few years of life. Some of
the characteristics are sex-linked. There is evidence that newborn females are more likely than newborn
males to smile, to cling to their mothers, to be receptive to touching and talking, to be sensitive to certain
270 stimuli, such as being touched by a cloth, and to have less upperbody strength. Mothers certainly treat girls
and boys differently, but the differences are not simply a matter of the mother's choice—female babies are
more responsive than male babies to precisely the kind of treatment that is regarded as «feminine». When
275 adults are asked to play with infants, they play with them in ways they think are appropriate to the infants'
sexes. But there is also some evidence that when the sex of the infant is concealed, the behavior of the
adults is influenced by the conduct of the child.
280 24. Premature infants or those bom with low birth weights have a special problem. These children are