The Past, Present, and Future of Young Criminals: An Interdisciplinary Research Review

Author: Sweta W Somo

Affiliation: Founder & CEO of Mind Reader - www.happiertherapies.com 0411885666 support@happiertherapies.com

Date: 7 January 2026 (GMT+11)

Abstract

Criminal behavior emerges from the complex interplay of biological predispositions, prenatal and early-life exposures, psychological development, and socio-structural conditions. This review synthesizes evidence across genetics, neurobiology, developmental psychology, sociology, and public health to address: (1) how criminal propensities arise; (2) the role of family and environment; (3) survival strategies and lifelong struggles; (4) trajectories and outcomes; (5) crime frequency and punishment; and (6) pregnancy-related risk conditions. While popular spiritual frameworks (e.g., astrology or “soul choosing families”) are culturally significant to some, their predictive validity is unsupported by empirical science. Evidence favors multifactorial, non-deterministic pathways in which risk and protective factors accumulate over time, with desistance commonly occurring via social bonds, identity change, and opportunity structures. Policy implications emphasize prenatal care, trauma-informed supports, early childhood and parenting programs, fair sentencing, and rehabilitation-oriented corrections. (Caspi et al., 2002; Moffitt, 1993; Raine, 2002; Sampson & Laub, 2003)

Keywords: Criminal behavior; gene–environment interaction; prenatal stress and teratogens; neurocriminology; social disorganization; desistance; rehabilitation; sentencing; early prevention.

Introduction

Understanding criminality requires integrating individual-level risk (e.g., neurocognitive traits) with contextual forces (e.g., poverty, neighborhood disorganization). Foundational work describes heterogeneity in developmental pathways—most notably a life-course-persistent group versus adolescence-limited offending (Moffitt, 1993; Farrington, 2005). Parallel evidence shows that genetic influences interact with adversity, not predestine outcomes, highlighting the importance of supportive environments (Rhee & Waldman, 2002; Caspi et al., 2002). Sociological frameworks explain how structural stressors and weak social controls elevate crime, while social capital and collective efficacy protect communities (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997; Sampson & Groves, 1989). Taken together, criminal behavior is best understood as a dynamic, probabilistic process spanning prenatal to adult contexts (Shonkoff & Garner, 2012; Loeber & Farrington, 2000).

1. How Are Criminals “Born”? (Nature, Nurture, and Developmental Taxonomies)

The “born criminal” notion is historically linked to Lombroso but lacks modern empirical support. Contemporary evidence shows moderate heritability of antisocial behavior (meta-analytic h² ≈ 0.4–0.5), strongly moderated by environment (Rhee & Waldman, 2002; Burt, 2009). Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy distinguishes a life-course-persistent group—often marked by early neurodevelopmental risk, difficult temperament, and cumulative adversity—from an adolescence-limited group influenced by peer dynamics and the “maturity gap” (Moffitt, 1993; Moffitt, 2006). Gene–environment research demonstrates that MAOA genotype moderates maltreatment effects on later antisocial outcomes, illustrating conditional risk rather than genetic determinism (Caspi et al., 2002; Byrd & Manuck, 2014). Neurocriminology finds prefrontal executive deficits and amygdala dysfunction associated with impulsivity and aggression, again heterogeneously and contextually (Raine, 2002; Glenn & Raine, 2014).

References: Rhee & Waldman (2002); Moffitt (1993); Caspi et al. (2002); Byrd & Manuck (2014); Raine (2002); Glenn & Raine (2014)

2. Family Background and Early Environment

Family systems and early caregiving environments are central. Harsh, inconsistent parenting and coercive family interactions predict conduct problems and escalation into delinquency (Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989; Moffitt, 2006). Prospective studies link childhood abuse and neglect to elevated odds of adolescent and adult offending, net of confounders, with dose–response patterns (Widom, 1989; Smith & Thornberry, 1995). Attachment insecurity and limited parental monitoring increase risk, whereas warmth, consistent boundaries, and school engagement protect (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986; Fraley & Heffernan, 2013). At the community level, concentrated disadvantage and social disorganization weaken informal controls and increase exposure to deviant peer networks (Shaw & McKay, 1942; Sampson & Groves, 1989). Collective efficacy—neighbors’ shared trust and willingness to intervene—predicts lower violence independent of structural factors (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997; Pratt & Cullen, 2005).

References: Patterson et al. (1989); Widom (1989); Smith & Thornberry (1995); Sampson & Groves (1989); Sampson et al. (1997); Pratt & Cullen (2005)

3. Survival Strategies and Lifelong Struggles

Individuals in high-risk ecologies often adopt survival-oriented strategies—hypervigilance, norm-transgressing economies, and strong in-group loyalties—that may conflict with legal norms (Anderson, 1999; Bourgois, 1995). Chronic stress and trauma alter self-regulation and threat appraisal, compounding risk for impulsivity and substance misuse (Shonkoff & Garner, 2012; Felitti et al., 1998). Post-incarceration, barriers to employment, housing, and healthcare impede reintegration, with stigma and legal collateral consequences driving cyclical disadvantage (Pager, 2003; Western, 2006). Health burdens are substantial—elevated rates of mental disorders, infectious diseases, and overdose risk concentrated around release (Binswanger et al., 2011; Fazel & Seewald, 2012). Social supports (prosocial peers, mentors, family ties) and treatment access are critical for stabilizing life domains that underwrite desistance (Maruna, 2001; Giordano, Cernkovich, & Rudolph, 2002).

References: Shonkoff & Garner (2012); Felitti et al. (1998); Pager (2003); Western (2006); Maruna (2001); Giordano et al. (2002)

4. Where Do They End, and What Do They Miss in Life? (Trajectories and Desistance)

The age–crime curve shows involvement peaks in late adolescence then declines for most, while a smaller group persists (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983; Farrington, 1986). Desistance commonly follows turning points—stable work, quality intimate partnerships, and military service—via routine restructuring and identity change (Sampson & Laub, 2003; Laub, Nagin, & Sampson, 1998). Cognitive transformation—the development of a “prosocial self-story”—facilitates sustained change (Maruna, 2001; Giordano et al., 2002). What persistent offenders often “miss” are cumulative opportunities: education credentials, labor-market attachment, and lawful social capital, each eroded by early exclusion and criminal records (Uggen, 2000; Pager, 2003). Family life is frequently disrupted—parent–child relationships strained by incarceration and instability (Wildeman & Muller, 2012; Murray & Farrington, 2008).

References: Sampson & Laub (2003); Maruna (2001); Giordano et al. (2002); Pager (2003); Wildeman & Muller (2012); Murray & Farrington (2008)

5. Frequency of Crime and Duration of Punishment (Patterns, Sentencing, and Recidivism)

Frequency and severity of offending vary by developmental pathway and opportunity structures (Farrington, 2005; Loeber & Farrington, 2000). Sentencing length is influenced by legal guidelines, offense seriousness, and prior records; however, longer incarceration alone shows limited deterrent effects and may be criminogenic via social dislocation and diminished prospects (Nagin, 2013; Cullen, Jonson, & Nagin, 2011). Evidence consistently favors rehabilitation-oriented approaches—cognitive behavioral therapy, risk–need–responsivity frameworks, and substance-use treatment—over purely punitive models for reducing recidivism (Lipsey, 1999; Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Restorative justice programs can lower reoffending and increase victim satisfaction when properly implemented (Sherman & Strang, 2007; Strang et al., 2013). Post-release supports (housing, employment services, mental health care) substantially improve outcomes and reduce crime frequency (Visher & Travis, 2003; Tripodi, Kim, & Bender, 2010).

References: Nagin (2013); Cullen et al. (2011); Lipsey (1999); Andrews & Bonta (2010); Sherman & Strang (2007); Strang et al. (2013)

6. Pregnancy Situations That Elevate Risk (Prenatal Influences & Early Development)

Important caveat: Prenatal exposures increase risk for later externalizing behavior and neurodevelopmental challenges; they do not deterministically “create criminals.” Key pathways include:

• Maternal stress and anxiety: Associated with fetal programming effects on stress-regulatory systems and socioemotional development (Van den Bergh et al., 2005; Talge, Neal, & Glover, 2007).

• Teratogens (alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs): Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders present with attention, executive, and impulse-control deficits; prenatal smoking and drug exposures likewise elevate externalizing risk (Streissguth et al., 1999; Mattson, Bernes, & Doyle, 2019).

• Toxicants (e.g., lead): Early lead exposure is linked to impulsivity and antisocial behavior; community-level lead reductions correlate with crime declines (Needleman et al., 1996; Reyes, 2007).

• Nutrition and prenatal care: Undernutrition and inadequate prenatal care affect brain development, with famine cohorts showing elevated adult psychopathology risks (Barker, 1990; Neugebauer et al., 1999).

• Intimate partner violence and severe stressors: Contribute to dysregulated maternal cortisol and adverse birth outcomes, with downstream developmental risks (O’Donnell et al., 2013; Devries et al., 2010).

Early interventions—home visiting (Nurse–Family Partnership), parenting programs (e.g., Triple P), and high-quality early education—demonstrate durable benefits for behavior, schooling, and long-term social outcomes (Olds et al., 1997; Sanders, 1999).

References: Van den Bergh et al. (2005); Talge et al. (2007); Streissguth et al. (1999); Mattson et al. (2019); Needleman et al. (1996); Barker (1990); Olds et al. (1997); Sanders (1999)

7. Cultural and Spiritual Frames vs. Scientific Evidence (e.g., Astrology, “Soul Choosing Families”)

Cultural beliefs about destiny (including astrological constructs such as Rahu) can carry personal meaning, but scientific tests find no predictive validity of astrology for personality or life outcomes, including criminality (Carlson, 1985; Hines, 2003). Large-scale reviews conclude that astrological claims fail controlled evaluations and do not outperform chance (Dean & Kelly, 2003; Alcock, 1981). From an evidence-based standpoint, investment in prenatal health, safe caregiving, and equitable social policy is far more impactful than interpreting natal charts or celestial cycles.

References: Carlson (1985); Hines (2003); Dean & Kelly (2003); Alcock (1981)

Policy and Practice Implications

1. Prenatal and Perinatal Health: Expand access to comprehensive prenatal care, nutrition supports, and stress-reduction services; screen and address intimate partner violence (Shonkoff & Garner, 2012; O’Donnell et al., 2013).

2. Early Childhood & Parenting: Scale evidence-based home visiting and parenting programs (NFP, Triple P), trauma-informed childcare, and developmental screening (Olds et al., 1997; Sanders, 1999).

3. Education & Youth Supports: Invest in inclusive schooling, mentoring, and pro-social activities that buffer against peer deviance and disengagement (Loeber & Farrington, 2000; Lipsey, 2006).

4. Community Safety & Opportunity: Improve neighborhood conditions, reduce toxic exposures (e.g., lead), and strengthen collective efficacy through resident-led initiatives (Sampson et al., 1997; Reyes, 2007).

5. Sentencing & Corrections: Favor proportional sentencing with rehabilitative programming; implement risk–need–responsivity models and restorative justice where appropriate (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Sherman & Strang, 2007).

6. Reentry Supports: Provide housing, employment pathways, and continuity of healthcare to reduce recidivism and stabilize families (Visher & Travis, 2003; Tripodi et al., 2010).

Ethical Considerations

Risk assessment must avoid stigmatizing children, families, or communities. Emphasis should remain on supports, not labels. Genetic and neurobiological findings should be communicated as probabilistic, contingent on environment and opportunity (Appelbaum, 2012; Morse, 2011). Culturally respectful engagement recognizes varied belief systems while grounding interventions in tested practices (Gone, 2013; Betancourt et al., 2011).

References: Appelbaum (2012); Morse (2011); Gone (2013); Betancourt et al. (2011)

Conclusion

Criminal behavior reflects layered influences, beginning as early as the prenatal period but unfolding through family dynamics, neighborhood context, peer networks, and institutional structures. No single factor “creates” a criminal. Evidence supports a prevention-to-rehabilitation continuum that prioritizes health, education, social capital, and fair justice practices. When societies invest in supportive ecosystems—starting before birth and continuing across the life course—both crime and suffering fall, and desistance becomes a realistic, achievable path for many (Shonkoff & Garner, 2012; Sampson & Laub, 2003).

References

• Alcock, J. (1981). Parapsychology: Science or Magic? Pergamon.

• Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (5th ed.). Routledge.

• Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the Street. Norton.

• Appelbaum, P. S. (2012). The double helix takes the witness stand. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 40(2), 160–169.

• Barker, D. J. P. (1990). The fetal and infant origins of adult disease. BMJ, 301, 1111–1111.

• Betancourt, T. S., et al. (2011). Sierra Leone’s former child soldiers: Psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 50(5), 349–362.

• Binswanger, I. A., et al. (2011). Mortality after prison release. New England Journal of Medicine, 356(2), 157–165.

• Bourgois, P. (1995). In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. Cambridge University Press.

• Burt, S. A. (2009). Are there sex differences in the etiology of antisocial behavior? Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 531–546.

• Byrd, A. L., & Manuck, S. B. (2014). MAOA, childhood maltreatment, and antisocial behavior. Biological Psychiatry, 75(1), 9–17.

• Carlson, S. (1985). A double-blind test of astrology. Nature, 318, 419–425.

• Caspi, A., et al. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence. Science, 297(5582), 851–854.

• Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Prisons do not reduce recidivism. The Prison Journal, 91(3), 48S–65S.

• Dean, G., & Kelly, I. (2003). Is astrology relevant to consciousness and psi? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(6–7), 175–198.

• Devries, K. M., et al. (2010). IPV and adverse pregnancy outcomes. BJOG, 117(13), 1521–1528.

• Farrington, D. P. (1986). Age–crime curve. In Crime and Justice, 7, 189–250.

• Farrington, D. P. (2005). Childhood risk factors and adult antisocial outcomes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(8), 928–965.

• Fazel, S., & Seewald, K. (2012). Severe mental illness in prisoners. British Journal of Psychiatry, 200(5), 364–373.

• Felitti, V. J., et al. (1998). Adverse childhood experiences. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258.

• Fraley, R. C., & Heffernan, M. E. (2013). Attachment and self-regulation. Journal of Personality, 81(5), 529–542.

• Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 990–1064.

• Glenn, A. L., & Raine, A. (2014). Neurocriminology: Implications for law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 10, 61–87.

• Gone, J. P. (2013). Redressing First Nations mental health. Transcultural Psychiatry, 50(5), 683–706.

• Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. (1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of Sociology, 89(3), 552–584.

• Hines, T. (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books.

• Laub, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending. Criminology, 36(3), 493–526.

• Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Rehabilitation and recidivism meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, (various).

• Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Young children who commit crime. Development and Psychopathology, 12(4), 909–932.

• Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors and delinquency. Criminology, 24(2), 219–235.

• Maruna, S. (2001). Making Good. American Psychological Association.

• Mattson, S. N., Bernes, G. A., & Doyle, L. R. (2019). FASD overview. The Lancet, 394(1020), 766–776.

• Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Developmental taxonomy of antisocial behavior. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701.

• Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Life-course-persistent vs adolescence-limited antisocial behavior. Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences, 1036, 295–301.

• Morse, S. J. (2011). Neuroethics and responsibility. Journal of Law & Biosciences, various.

• Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Parental imprisonment. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 8(2), 147–164.

• Needleman, H. L., et al. (1996). Bone lead levels and delinquent behavior. JAMA, 275(5), 363–369.

• Neugebauer, R., et al. (1999). Prenatal famine and adult psychopathology. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56(3), 223–229.

• Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence and the death penalty/incarceration review. NRC Report, National Academies.

• O’Donnell, K. J., et al. (2013). Prenatal maternal mood and infant stress regulation. Developmental Psychobiology, 55(4), 304–314.

• Olds, D., et al. (1997). Nurse–Family Partnership trial outcomes. JAMA, 278(8), 644–652.

• Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108(5), 937–975.

• Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44(2), 329–335.

• Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Meta-analysis of macro-level predictors of crime. Justice Quarterly, 22(3), 501–547.

• Raine, A. (2002). Biosocial bases of violence. Psychological Science, 13(2), 121–124.

• Reyes, J. W. (2007). Lead exposure and crime. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 7(1), Article 51.

• Rhee, S. H., & Waldman, I. D. (2002). Genetic and environmental influences on antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 128(3), 490–529.

• Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2003). Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives. Harvard University Press.

• Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774–802.

• Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhood collective efficacy and violence. Science, 277(5328), 918–924.

• Sanders, M. R. (1999). Triple P—Positive Parenting Program: Overview. Journal of Family Psychology, 12(4), 501–517.

• Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative Justice: The Evidence. Smith Institute.

• Shonkoff, J. P., & Garner, A. S. (2012). The lifelong effects of early adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics, 129(1), e232–e246.

• Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. University of Chicago Press.

• Smith, C., & Thornberry, T. P. (1995). The relationship between childhood maltreatment and adolescent involvement in delinquency. Criminology, 33(4), 451–481.

• Streissguth, A. P., et al. (1999). Long-term effects of prenatal alcohol exposure. Alcohol Research & Health, 23(3), 172–178.

• Strang, H., et al. (2013). Restorative justice and reoffending. Cambridge Journal of Criminology, various.

• Talge, N. M., Neal, C., & Glover, V. (2007). Antenatal maternal stress and neurodevelopment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(3–4), 245–261.

• Tripodi, S. J., Kim, J. S., & Bender, K. (2010). Substance abuse treatment and recidivism. Research on Social Work Practice, 21(2), 163–172.

• Uggen, C. (2000). Work as a turning point in desistance. American Sociological Review, 65(4), 529–546.

• Van den Bergh, B. R. H., et al. (2005). Antenatal maternal anxiety and child problem behavior. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 1058–1069.

• Visher, C. A., & Travis, J. (2003). Transitions from prison to community. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 89–113.

• Western, B. (2006). Punishment and Inequality in America. Russell Sage Foundation.

• Widom, C. S. (1989). The cycle of violence. Science, 244(4901), 160–166.

• Wildeman, C., & Muller, C. (2012). Mass imprisonment and inequality in family life. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8, 11–30.