\Mednick, Sarnoff A.; Gabrielli, William F., Jr., and Hutchings, Barry. "Genetic Influences in

 

\Mednick, Sarnoff A.; Gabrielli, William F., Jr., and Hutchings, Barry. "Genetic Influences in
Criminal Convictions: Evidence from an Adoption Cohort," Science 224 (25 May 1984), pp.
891-893.\

Biologism is not dead. Here is an article on conviction records which indicates that adoptive kids
have conviction records similar to their biological parents; there is no correlation to their
adoptive parents, at least regarding crimes against property. (Every time I think this sort of thing
has finally been discredited, it turns up again.)

"Abstract: The possibility that genetic factors are among the causes of criminal behavior was
tested by comparing court convictions of 14,427 adoptees with those of their biological and
adoptive parents. A statistically significant correlation was found between the adoptees and the
biological parents for convictions of property crimes. This was not true with respect to violent
crimes. There was no statistically significant correlation between adoptee and adoptive parent
count convictions. Siblings adopted separately into different homes tended to be concordant for
convictions, especially if the shared biological father also had a record of criminal behavior."

The assumptions to which these authors do not address themselves are important: who gets to
adopt a child? Only the best of families are eligible and families with any conviction records
would probably not be eligible for adopting kids. Secondly, the criminal statistics of any country
are to be avoided in that the error term of such data is enormous. It would be better if these data
were burned. Unfortunately, they stand like mountains, waiting for the unwary scaler. In other
words, the observed correlation means nothing.