LAUSR

Biosocial criminology has gained acceptance from criminologists and society within the last couple of years. Studies of criminologists and of the general public show that a substantial number of individuals believe that biologically based factors, such as neuropsychological problems, may increase one’s risk for criminal behavior. For instance, a recent survey of the general public found that 60% of respondents believed that neurological problems may be linked to criminal behavior. Approximately 32% of citizens reported that genetic factors may increase the likelihood of violent offending (Gajos, Beaver, Gertz, & Bratton, 2014). Similarly, Cooper, Walsh, and Ellis (2010) found that criminologists ranked biosocial criminology as the sixth most favored explanation for crime, whereas a previous survey of criminologists showed that biosocial criminology was not even listed in the top 10 theories of crime (Walsh & Ellis, 2004). These findings suggest that biosocial criminology is garnering more interest from criminologists and that it finally has “a place at the criminological table” (Pratt, Turanovic, & Cullen, 2016). Despite the growing acceptance of biosocial criminology within the theoretical aspect of our discipline, there are questions surrounding the practical importance of biosocial criminology to the daily workings of the criminal justice system. When asked about the implications of biosocial criminology, most scholars point to the importance of early intervention programs, the removal of toxic elements (e.g., lead), and the neurodevelopmental reasons why adolescents should not be transferred to the adult judicial system (Rocque, Welsh, & Raine, 2012; Steinberg, Cauffman, Woolard, Graham, & Banich, 2009; Vaughn, 2016). Very few scholars have considered how biosocial criminology finds its way into the courts and corrections. Of the few who have considered this question, many focus on whether the effectiveness of treatment varies by genetic makeup, and thus, genetic testing may suggest whether a treatment will be effective or not (Cleveland, Schlomer, Vandenbergh, & Wiebe, 2016; Gajos, Fagan, & Beaver, 2016). The idea of genetically testing clients may not be practical to those working in criminal justice settings such as probation officers and treatment providers, and as Vaughn (2016) highlighted, the lack of replication in this area may preclude the implementation of these methods. Instead, practitioners may want researchers