Review by Choice Review
Larregue (Laval Univ., Canada) presents the near future possibilities for the use of "biosocial criminology" in the courts and related areas of investigation and correction (p. 5). Drawing on a case study from Italy, scientific theories popular in France, and extensive scientific writings, he describes a slim but growing argument for courts using biology, psychiatry, genetics, and neuroscience to establish the cause of individual criminality. Several problems impede this movement. As Larregue recognizes, the "credibility of this research is not well established" (p. 172). Further, there is the overall negative view of the discredited biological theories of criminologist Cesare Lombroso, the competitive differences between prosecuting and defending attorneys regarding what evidence should be admitted in a trial, and new court rules that limit scientific expert testimony as stated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). However, in recent years the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of allowing testimony that allegedly predicts which convicted criminals would be dangerous again in the future. The court has also taken into account biological development (or lack thereof) in the case of some juvenile rulings. Summing Up: Recommended. General readers through faculty; professionals. --Larry D. Woods, Tennessee State University
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by Choice Review
