Crime and recovery time: Mednick revisited

The question as to whether a relationship exists between the responsiveness of the autonomic nervous system and criminal behavior attracts the modest, but nonetheless significant, interest of psychophysiologically oriented researchers. Although the results of research in this field do not always point in the same direction, the view that the autonomic nervous system of criminals is hyporesponsive does in fact prevail. With regard to electrodermal activity, this is, according to Mednick, an established fact (Mednick & Volavka, 1980). The proposition that the autonomic nervous system of offenders is characterized by hyporesponsiveness raises a number of questions. The first concerns the fact that this pronouncement is in the nature of a generalization. All offenders are supposed to react hyporesponsively. Such a basic assumption presupposes that, with regard to criminals, we are dealing with homogeneous groups. This assumption is certainly questionable. In the case of criminal behavior, we are dealing with widely divergent categories of conduct such as theft, vandalism, rape, environmental pollution, corruption, drunken driving, and the like. It is difficult to imagine people involved in such diverse behaviors react similarly with regard to their autonomic nervous system. By means of data yet to be presented, we hope to show that such doubt is, in fact, legitimate. The second question concerns the concept hyporesponsiveness. This too is discussed in terms of generalizations. Offenders are taken to react hyporesponsively as far as their autonomic nervous system is concerned, irrespective of the parameter employed. This implies that we are dealing here with a general factor responsiveness. The results of research in this field certainly do not unequivocally support this idea (Duffy, 1962). Even if we confine ourselves to electroderma1 activity, and more particularly to amplitude and recovery time, the covariante observed is not impressive. This is not surprising. Edelberg (1972) has pointed out that amplitude and recovery time are determined by different processes. On the other hand, Bundy (1974) was able to show that recovery time is also dependent on the preceding level of electrodermal activity. His observation received subsequent empirical support from research carried out by Bundy and