Neurocriminology: What Brain Science Says About Criminal Behavior
Updated October 13, 2026
Neurocriminology studies how brain structure, chemistry, and injury correlate with criminal and violent behavior, using tools like brain imaging alongside traditional criminology. Some studies have found associations between lower prefrontal cortex activity and violent behavior, but no brain scan or biomarker can predict whether a specific person will offend. For practitioners, it’s one more research thread, not a diagnostic tool.
Brought to you by Concordia University, St. Paul – Criminal Justice Department.
Jerrod Brown, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Program Director, and lead developer for CSP’s Master of Arts in Human Services (with emphasis options in Forensic Behavioral Health or Trauma, Resilience, and Self-Care strategies), breaks down what this research field actually covers.
If you spend any real time in criminal justice training, you’ll run into claims about the “criminal brain.” Some are backed by real research; most aren’t. Neurocriminology is the field trying to sort out which is which, pairing brain imaging and biology with the more familiar work of criminology.
What Is Neurocriminology?
Neurocriminology combines neuroscience, biology, psychology, and genetics to study how brain-related factors relate to violent and criminal behavior. It’s interdisciplinary by design, not just criminologists but neuroscientists, psychiatrists, and legal scholars working on the same problem from different angles.
The goal isn’t to label anyone “born criminal.” It’s to better understand the risk factors associated with violent behavior, alongside the personality, upbringing, and environmental factors criminology has studied for decades.
What the Research Has Found So Far
Researchers use a handful of specific tools to study the brains of people with histories of violence or criminal behavior:
- Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): Produces detailed structural images of the brain, used to spot physical differences in size or shape.
- Functional MRI (fMRI): Measures changes in blood oxygenation that are associated with neural activity, used to see which brain regions show more or less activation during certain tasks.
- Positron emission tomography (PET): Tracks metabolic activity in the brain, which some studies use to explore functional differences, including in regions thought to be involved in impulse control.
No single factor decides anything on its own. Genetics, prenatal exposure to drugs or alcohol, poor maternal nutrition, neurological differences, and environment all show up as correlates in the literature, studied as developmental risk factors rather than direct causes, and they often compound each other. Strokes, epilepsy, and traumatic brain injuries have been associated with cognitive changes that researchers are studying as potential risk factors, though the path from any of these conditions to actual offending is complex and far from settled. Researchers have also studied biological markers like heart rate variability, skin conductance, neurochemical and physiological measures, and hormone-related differences in connection with violent behavior, and some current work looks at how these same patterns might relate to differences in empathy and remorse, though that research shows association, not a confirmed cause.
How It’s Used in Assessment and Treatment
This research is still mostly in the lab, not yet standard practice. A few areas under active study:
- Screening and risk assessment: Researchers are exploring whether neurobiological markers could eventually contribute to existing risk-assessment tools, but they aren’t part of any standard criminal-justice risk instrument today.
- Related interventions: Biofeedback, cognitive-emotional training, mindfulness training, and pharmacology are studied in adjacent fields with their own evidence bases, and some researchers are examining them specifically through a neurocriminology lens.
- Early developmental care: Given the prenatal risk factors above, some researchers have explored earlier intervention, well before any offense occurs, though this remains an area of ongoing study rather than an established practice.
There’s also early, preliminary research on nutrition, including omega-3 supplementation, that’s worth watching but isn’t an established crime-prevention tool. None of this is settled science you’d build a sentencing recommendation on. It’s a body of research still working its way toward practical application.
Why This Matters for Criminal Justice Professionals
Neurocriminology is a young, fast-moving research area, and most criminal justice curricula haven’t caught up to it yet. That doesn’t mean CJ staff should start drawing clinical conclusions from it. If someone in your caseload has a documented brain injury or a diagnosed impulse-control disorder, that’s a matter for a qualified medical or mental health professional, not something to interpret through a neurocriminology article.
Where this research may eventually matter is broader. How interviews and interrogations are conducted, how evidence is weighed at trial, and how reentry programs are designed are all areas where legal scholars and researchers are actively exploring neuroscience’s relevance, though none of this reflects established practice today. It also raises genuine ethical questions. Using brain data to inform punishment or supervision decisions is still contested, and it should be.
If your work ever touches on this kind of research in an actual case, remember that the authority to assess or treat someone comes from a clinical license in psychology, psychiatry, or counseling, not from familiarity with neurocriminology itself, and those licensing requirements vary by state. A criminal justice degree alone doesn’t qualify someone to conduct neuroimaging or clinical neurocriminology research either. Those roles typically call for specialized graduate training and, where clinical practice is involved, state licensure.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is neurocriminology?
Neurocriminology is the study of how brain structure, chemistry, and injury relate to criminal and violent behavior. It draws on neuroscience, biology, psychology, and genetics, using tools like MRI and PET scans alongside traditional criminology research.
Can a brain scan predict if someone will commit a crime?
No. Researchers have found associations between certain brain patterns and violent behavior, but no scan or biomarker can reliably predict an individual’s future actions. It’s one input among many researchers are studying, not a diagnostic test.
How is neurocriminology used in criminal justice today?
Right now it’s almost entirely a research field. Some early work is exploring whether findings could eventually inform risk-assessment tools, but none of this is standard practice in criminal justice settings today.
Who studies neurocriminology?
It draws people from criminology, neuroscience, psychiatry, psychology, and law. Professionals working in corrections, mental health, substance use treatment, and victim advocacy may find it useful background, but applying any of it to a specific case is a job for a qualified clinician, not a judgment call for criminal justice staff.
Is neurocriminology the same as saying people are “born criminals”?
No. Researchers in the field are explicit that no single genetic, neurological, or environmental factor determines criminal behavior on its own. The research looks at correlations and risk factors, not fixed destinies.
Key Takeaways
- It’s a correlation field, not a crystal ball – Brain imaging and biomarkers show associations with violent behavior, but they can’t predict individual outcomes.
- Multiple factors interact – Genetics, prenatal exposure, brain injury, and environment are all studied as risk factors, and no single one tells the whole story.
- It’s still mostly research, not practice – Screening tools, treatment interventions, and nutrition studies are all in early stages, not standard criminal-justice practice.
- Clinical judgment stays with licensed professionals – Applying any of this to a real case is a job for a qualified psychologist, psychiatrist, or counselor, not criminal justice staff.
About the Author
Jerrod Brown, Ph.D., M.A., M.S., M.S., M.S., is a professor, trainer, researcher, and consultant with multiple years of experience teaching collegiate courses. Jerrod is also the founder and CEO of the American Institute for the Advancement of Forensic Studies (AIAFS).
If this kind of research interests you, it’s worth comparing how different roles in the justice system put behavioral science to work, from forensic psychology to corrections, before you decide which door to walk through.