Built for Crime

by Lou Schuler on Jun 17, 2008 8:19 AM EDT Comment 3 comments

I got a big kick out of this story in today's New York Times:

A new study that looked at the physical characteristics of about 5,000 Arkansas inmates found that most were athletically fit when they entered prison. The researchers referred to them as mesomorphs.

Here's the study's abstract . The thing that jumps out -- which the Times notes -- is that the researchers used body-mass index to determine fitness. And since BMI is a blunt instrument, measuring the ratio of weight to height without taking into account body-fat percentage of athletic ability, a study like this is hard totake seriously.

Maybe the full study makes a good argument that criminals are more likely to have certain physiological characteristics than non-criminals. We can all imagine why it would be a liability for a criminal to be overweight or underweight. And the researchers make it clear in the abstract that they aren't attaching any causal mechanism to their findings -- clearly, there's nothing about being built a certain way that predisposes one to criminality, especially considering that falling within the acceptable weight range is probably an advantage in any profession.

But you can't beat the entertainment value of a study like this. If nothing else, it turns some stereotypes upside down. The massive mafiosi and emaciated crackheads are apparently in the minority of the prison population. Good to know.

0 recs | Comment 3 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

At least in Arkansas

Most criminals, at least the type that get caught, tend to be poor and uneducated. When they’re not committing crimes, they’re living in their mom’s basement and doing whatever they can to put some food in their bodies. I’m no bleeding heart, but probably some of what you’re seeing, especially in a rural state like Arkansas, is a prison population that’s no stranger to manual labor and probably just doesn’t eat that much, compared to the rest of the population.

by Joe in DC on Jun 17, 2008 10:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

A good chuckle

...is how I ended this story today. Without access to the full study, I’ll assume it’s statistically significant given the number of cases studied, but I think the correlative conclusions are just a little misleading. If more criminals fit a “healthy” mold, does that mean there are more of them in general, or do the endos and ectos know some tricks to avoid capture? While the full study is largely unavailable at first glance, the actual NYT article’s last two paragraphs had me shaking my head:

"Those who are fit may have personalities that are more likely to make them violent," Dr. Walker said in an e-mail message.

"In essence," Dr. Walker said, "what drives them to be fit also drives them to be violent. It is also likely that those who are fit find themselves in violent situations more."

The first line at least uses qualifiers (“may,” “more likely”), but the causal implication in the second line-“what drives them to be fit also drives them to be violent”-leads me to think of this as just another vilification of testosterone. I just want to know who funded the study so I get me a piece of that pie.

by Phaedrus49er on Jun 17, 2008 11:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

wow!

That is crazy. I would like to look at the actual research methodology on this one. It is true that all men who commit crimes have testosterone. Is that what the study is supposed to prove?

by usana_gaines on Jun 19, 2008 12:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs