Nature | News

Brain scans predict which criminals are more likely to reoffend

Neuroimaging 'biomarker' linked to rearrest after incarceration.

Article tools

Rights & Permissions

Doug Menuez/Getty

Activity in a particular region of the cortex could tell whether a convict is likely to get in trouble again.

In a twist that evokes the dystopian science fiction of writer Philip K. Dick, neuroscientists have found a way to predict whether convicted felons are likely to commit crimes again from looking at their brain scans. Convicts showing low activity in a brain region associated with decision-making and action are more likely to be arrested again, and sooner.

Kent Kiehl, a neuroscientist at the non-profit Mind Research Network in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and his collaborators studied a group of 96 male prisoners just before their release. The researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to scan the prisoners’ brains during computer tasks in which subjects had to make quick decisions and inhibit impulsive reactions.

The scans focused on activity in a section of the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a small region in the front of the brain involved in motor control and executive functioning. The researchers then followed the ex-convicts for four years to see how they fared.

Among the subjects of the study, men who had lower ACC activity during the quick-decision tasks were more likely to be arrested again after getting out of prison, even after the researchers accounted for other risk factors such as age, drug and alcohol abuse and psychopathic traits. Men who were in the lower half of the ACC activity ranking had a 2.6-fold higher rate of rearrest for all crimes and a 4.3-fold higher rate for nonviolent crimes. The results are published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences1.

There is growing interest in using neuroimaging to predict specific behaviour, says Tor Wager, a neuroscientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder. He says that studies such as this one, which tie brain imaging to concrete clinical outcomes, “provide a new and so far very promising way” to find patterns of brain activity that have broader implications for society.

But the authors themselves stress that much more work is needed to prove that the technique is reliable and consistent, and that it is likely to flag only the truly high-risk felons and leave the low-risk ones alone.This isn't ready for prime time,” says Kiehl.

Wager adds that the part of the ACC examined in this study “is one of the most frequently activated areas in the human brain across all kinds of tasks and psychological states”. Low ACC activity could have a variety of causes — impulsivity, caffeine use, vascular health, low motivation or better neural efficiency — and not all of these are necessarily related to criminal behaviour.

Crime prediction was the subject of Dick's 1956 short story “The Minority Report” (adapted for the silver screen by Steven Spielberg in 2002), which highlighted the thorny ethics of arresting people for crimes they had yet to commit.

Brain scans are of course a far cry from the clairvoyants featured in that science-fiction story. But even if the science turns out to be reliable, the legal and social implications remain to be explored, the authors warn. Perhaps the most appropriate use for neurobiological markers would be for helping to make low-stakes decisions, such as which rehabilitation treatment to assign a prisoner, rather than high-stakes ones such as sentencing or releasing on parole.

“A treatment of [these clinical neuroimaging studies] that is either too glibly enthusiastic or over-critical,” Wager says, “will be damaging for this emerging science in the long run.”

Journal name:
Nature
DOI:
doi:10.1038/nature.2013.12672

References

  1. Aharoni, E. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1219302110 (2013).

  2. Yarkoni, T., Poldrack, R. A., Nichols, T. E., Van Essen, D. C. & Wager, T. D. Nature Methods 8, 665670 (2011).

For the best commenting experience, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will see comments updating in real-time and have the ability to recommend comments to other users.

Comments for this thread are now closed.

Comments

4 comments Subscribe to comments

  1. Avatar for Nick Parsans
    Nick Parsans

    I think his finding about brain scans done on a very small part of the prison population are interesting but should never be considered a factor in any type of longer stay for inmates or need for stronger probation standards for those that have this type of brain imagery on there scan, as so many other factors are reasons why offenders re-offend such as homelessness, joblessness or not being able to find a job with decent wages and host of other society factors that occur during recessions and wars etc etc..

  2. Avatar for Gustavo Seabra
    Gustavo Seabra

    Just wanted to point: The DOI for reference 1 doesn't work, and the article can't be found on the PNAS website (up to March 26th 2013).

  3. Avatar for Mitch Trachtenberg
    Mitch Trachtenberg

    This knowledge could be abused by someone refusing to release someone on parole or probation due to "unacceptable-ACC-levels." But it could really be helpful if the results were used to get someone additional help or even monitoring. Helping people with problems controlling their impulses could be beneficial, and it would be great to have a way of discovering which people in our prison system might well be there for exactly that reason.

  4. Avatar for Hendrik Feys
    Hendrik Feys

    This actually fits well with the beautiful commentary piece (link below) by the title of "neuroaesthetics is killing your soul". The present study published in PNAS is too small to be 'clinically relevant' in a multifactorial setting in which most confounding factors are not even known. Moreover, the primary endpoint being "arrested again" obviously does not include those subjects committing crimes without being arrested again (?). Nonetheless interesting research from a basic point of view, but very dodgy if this is to be applied (as the authors point out themselves).

CRISPR in humans

crispr-human

CRISPR gene-editing tested in a person for the first time

The move by Chinese scientists could spark a biomedical duel between China and the United States.

Newsletter

The best science news from Nature and beyond, direct to your inbox every day.

Radio-wave weirdness

fast-radio-burst-mystery

Long-sought signal deepens mystery of fast radio bursts

A discovery that was supposed to help reveal how the bursts arise only thickens the plot.

Warming waters

ocean

How much longer can Antarctica’s hostile ocean delay global warming?

The waters of the Southern Ocean have absorbed much of the excess heat and carbon generated by humanity.

The ultimate experiment

trump-science-experiment

How Trump will handle science

Climate-change and immigration policies raise alarm, but much of the incoming US president's agenda is simply unknown.

Testing genetics

mutations

The flip side of personal genomics: When a mutation doesn't spell disease

Researchers worry about misinforming people about the risk of disease.

Nature Podcast

new-pod-red

Listen

This week, your brain on cannabis, testing CRISPR in a human, and what it might be like to live on Mars.