CRIME HOT SPOTS AND BEHAVIOURAL MANIFESTATIONS OF ANTISOCIAL TENDENCIES: THE CASE OF ISRAEL

Over several decades, various criminological approaches to explaining the occurrence of crime have emerged. These approaches delve into various explanations for crime at the individual and environmental levels and contribute significantly to advancing law enforcement, crime prevention and crime reduction. Among the noteworthy approaches, the focus is on the criminology approach of “micro” places.

Hot spots expose individuals to a multitude of factors that contribute to antisocial behaviour, encompassing both initial offences and the potential for reoffending. These factors can be categorized as follows: (1) social disorder; (2) crime and disorder on the street, and (3) physical disorder.

Social disorder encompasses elements such as weak informal social controls, frayed social ties and the community’s inability to regulate its residents. These issues manifest in various structural characteristics, including poverty, low social cohesion, limited collective efficacy and frequent resident turnover (Telep and Hibdon Reference Telep and Hibdon2019; Weisburd, Groff, and Yang Reference Weisburd, Groff and Yang2014).

Crime and disorder on the street encompass association with criminal social networks and exposure to violence and criminal acts (Braga Reference Braga2005; Eck et al. Reference Eck, Chainey, Cameron, Leitner and Wilson2005; Weisburd and White Reference Weisburd and White2019; Weisburd et al. Reference Weisburd, Eck, Braga, Telep, Cave, Bowers, Bruinsma, Gill, Groff, Hibdon, Hinkle, Johnson, Lawton, Lum, Ratcliffe, Rengert, Taniguchi and Yang2016).

Physical disorder involves the presence of abandoned cars and buildings, secluded areas around deteriorating properties used for storing illegal substances (commonly referred to as “stash” locations) and excessive noise. Streets with more physical disorder, higher economic disadvantage and lower levels of collective efficacy are more likely to be crime hot spots (Telep and Hibdon Reference Telep and Hibdon2019).

Within these hot spots are psychosocial characteristics associated with these place-related attributes. These characteristics encompass a wide range of elements, including early-life adversity, inadequate parenting skills, traumatic experiences, socio-economic challenges, unstable employment and an overall diminished quality of life (Leshem and Weisburd Reference Leshem and Weisburd2019; Weisburd and White Reference Weisburd, Eck, Braga, Telep, Cave, Bowers, Bruinsma, Gill, Groff, Hibdon, Hinkle, Johnson, Lawton, Lum, Ratcliffe, Rengert, Taniguchi and Yang2016). Collectively, these factors create a complex web of influences that significantly heighten the risk of antisocial behaviour for individuals residing in hot spots.

While sociobiological criminological studies have extensively explored residential neighbourhoods and communities (macro-level places), research investigating a place at the micro level within this context is noticeably scarce, especially in Israel. Furthermore, regarding crime concentrations at the micro-geographical level, Israel has significantly limited research knowledge compared to the United States.

A series of studies has revealed a significant concentration of crime in various urban areas, such as cities in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Europe and Tel Aviv-Jaffa (Tel Aviv-Yafo), Israel. These studies have consistently shown that crime tends to concentrate in small geographies such as addresses, street segments or clusters of street segments (for more details, see Weisburd Reference Weisburd2015). Studies in Israel have confirmed the importance of crime hot spots in understanding crime in Tel Aviv-Yafo, showing that in Tel Aviv, 4.5% of streets produce 50% of crime, and 1% of streets produce 25% of crime (Weisburd and Amram Reference Weisburd and Amram2014). These trends are similar to those identified in Seattle and other cities (Weisburd Reference Weisburd2015; Weisburd and Amram Reference Weisburd and Amram2014). In addition, an Israel Science Foundation study examining only residential streets in Tel Aviv over 35 years found that a chronic crime street pattern with consistently high levels of crime included just 2.1% (n = 105) of residential streets (N = 4781), which accounted for 18% of the crime in the study period (Weisburd et al. Reference Weisburd, Shay, Amram, Zamir, Weisburd and John2017). This group of street segments also included 19.4% of all violent crimes in this period and had an average of 49 crime incidents each year. Using data from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, the study in Tel Aviv showed that crime hot spots have significant economic and social disadvantages as contrasted with streets with low crime levels (Weisburd et al. Reference Weisburd, Shay, Amram, Zamir, Weisburd and John2017).

In addition to the crucial role of identifying micro-geographic areas (i.e. street segments) in Israel for crime reduction at the policing level, it is essential to recognize that residing in streets with a high crime rate can have profound implications for an individual’s adaptive behaviour and mental health (Dong, White, and Weisburd Reference Dong, White and Weisburd2020; Weisburd and White Reference Weisburd and White2019). These implications underscore the intricate connection between hot-spot characteristics and the neurobiological substrates that underlie antisocial behaviour.

CRIME HOT SPOTS AND SOCIO-COGNITIVE SUBSTRATES FOR ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOURS

Environmental factors associated with place-related attributes are closely intertwined with criminogenic factors that encompass individual traits, such as antisocial tendencies, and pro-criminal attitudes, values and beliefs (Mathias, Marsh-Richard, and Dougherty Reference Mathias, Marsh-Richard and Dougherty2008; Moffitt et al. Reference Moffitt, Arseneault, Belsky, Dickson, Hancox, Harrington, Houts, Poulton, Roberts, Ross, Sears, Thomson and Caspi2011; Skeem and Peterson Reference Skeem and Peterson2011).

Within the neurobiological framework, it has been proposed that different forms of antisocial tendencies and behaviours are products of reciprocal interactions between and within the frontal lobes and subcortical regions (Fumagalli and Priori Reference Fumagalli and Priori2012; Leshem Reference Leshem2020). In particular, different cognitive components of pro-sociality and socialization, such as self-regulation, impulse control, empathy and moral reasoning, are largely associated with the PFC (Koenigs Reference Koenigs2012; Korponay et al. Reference Korponay, Pujara, Deming, Philippi, Decety, Kosson, Kiehl and Koenigs2017; Raine Reference Raine2008; Yang and Raine Reference Yang and Raine2009). The PFC is broadly divided into areas with different cytoarchitectures and connectivity patterns in the cortical and subcortical areas that form distinct but interconnected neural networks. These networks can be broadly classified into two functional systems: (1) the socio-emotional and (2) cognitive control systems.

The socio-emotional system includes the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC), a sub-region of the anterior cingulate gyrus, the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and the superior temporal sulcus, all of which are classified as the prelimbic cortex, and sub-cortical areas, the amygdala, the hypothalamus and the ventral striatum. These brain areas are involved in emotional and social processing, reward and punishment processing, regulation of social behaviour, decision-making involving emotional and personal interpretation, impulse control, and delayed gratification (Pfeifer and Peake Reference Pfeifer and Peake2012; Smith, Chein, and Steinberg Reference Smith, Chein and Steinberg2013; Steinberg Reference Steinberg2007, Reference Steinberg2008).

The cognitive control system consists mainly of the dorsolateral PFC, the ventrolateral PFC, the parietal cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex. This system is involved in the cognitive processes of self-control and has an important role in the cognitive aspect of information processing, inference processes, inhibition, planning, working memory and selective attention skills (Apps, Rushworth, and Chang Reference Apps, Rushworth and Chang2016; Fellows and Farah Reference Fellows and Farah2007; Zelazo and Müller Reference Zelazo, Müller and Goswami2011).

The functioning of each of the systems and the interconnections between them are important for self-regulation and pro-sociality, as shown in many imaging studies and behavioural studies among the adult and young population with a wide variety of antisocial-related behaviours – among them are impulsivity, risk-taking, addictions and violence (Casey and Caudle Reference Casey and Caudle2013; Chein et al. Reference Chein, Albert, O’Brien, Uckert and Steinberg2011; Chambers, Taylor, and Potenza Reference Chambers, Taylor and Potenza2003; Joseph et al. Reference Joseph, Zhu, Lynam and Kelly2016; Luna et al. Reference Luna, Paulsen, Padmanabhan and Geier2013; Spear Reference Spear2013; Steinberg and Chein Reference Steinberg and Chein2015; Tashjian et al. Reference Tashjian, Weissman, Guyer and Galván2018; Torregrossa, Quinn, and Taylor Reference Torregrossa, Quinn and Taylor2008). However, the growing evidence indicating a connection between deficiencies in these brain areas and various antisocial behaviours does not preclude the influence of the person’s environment. It is clear from neuro-criminology research that there is an interaction between neural substrates and the environment and that this interaction has a significant role in both the development and shaping of social and antisocial behaviours (Anderson Reference Anderson2021; Coppola Reference Coppola2018; Glenn and Raine Reference Glenn and Raine2014; Rocque, Raine, and Welsh Reference Rocque, Raine, Welsh, Welsh, Braga and Bruinsma2013). This interaction reflects the heterogeneity among antisocial individuals with different patterns of cognitive and emotional deficits, as well as diverse behavioural patterns.

Under normal conditions, when a person feels danger, fear, threat and anger in response to short-term negative and stressful environmental stimuli, the cortical and subcortical areas associated with these emotions, especially in the PFC and the limbic regions (Pessoa Reference Pessoa2008; Scherf, Smyth, and Delgado Reference Scherf, Smyth and Delgado2013), are activated in the following way. The emotional information received from the external environment is coded and transmitted in the form of electrical signals moving in neural pathways from the subcortical areas towards the cortical areas (namely, through the frontal–subcortical circuits [FSCs]). The prefrontal area in the frontal cortex then transmits chemical signals in neural pathways to reduce the emotional arousal of neural networks in the subcortical brain and to regulate emotions (Leshem Reference Leshem2016; Messina et al. Reference Messina, Bianco, Cusinato, Calvo and Sambin2016a, b). The limbic system, associated with the socio-emotional system, maintains close communication with higher areas of the cerebral cortex related to the cognitive control system. The latter enables one to interpret and give meaning to the transmitted signals and, accordingly, to decide how to respond.

However, prolonged exposure to negative experiences and fearful events due to residing in a crime-ridden environment (e.g. heightened perception of crime, a pervasive sense of personal insecurity, exposure to violent incidents or other criminal activities such as drug trafficking) can lead to alterations in FSCs. The amygdala, as the integrative centre for emotions located in the limbic system, is extensively interconnected with other brain areas that are part of the socio-emotional system, such as the anterior cingulate gyrus, the anterior insula, OFC and the VMPFC, which are involved in automatic emotional processes attributed to emotional reactivity and participates in many distributed neural circuits (Pessoa Reference Pessoa2008). Suppose the amygdala does not transmit information in a regulated and controlled manner. In that case, it may interfere with the activity of the cognitive control system, such as the dorsolateral and ventrolateral areas of the PFC. These brain areas are critical for executive control processes and are involved in conscious emotional processes attributed to emotional awareness and the ability to regulate emotions (Guendelman, Medeiros, and Rampes Reference Guendelman, Medeiros and Rampes2017).

Consequently, the ability to suppress inappropriate emotions and actions is most likely to be damaged. This disruption often occurs as the socio-emotional system takes precedence over the cognitive control system, resulting in an elevated risk for behaviours characterized by impaired inhibitory control and behavioural regulation (Scott and Steinberg Reference Scott and Steinberg2008; Steinberg et al. Reference Steinberg, Albert, Cauffman, Banich, Graham and Woolard2008). When the activity in these neural networks is disrupted, the transfer of neural inputs between these different areas of the brain prevents individuals from responding in a regulated and controlled manner (Baskin-Sommers et al. Reference Baskin-Sommers, Ruiz, Sarcos and Simmons2022). This breakdown in internal cognitive control aligns with the low external social control present in the community. The outcome of this interplay may manifest in a range of psychiatric disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder, substance use disorders and APD (Bick and Nelson Reference Bick and Nelson2016; Petersen, Joseph, and Feit Reference Petersen, Joseph and Feit2014; Weisburd et al. Reference Weisburd, Cave, Nelson, White, Haviland, Ready, Lawton and Sikkema2018b).

From a neurodevelopmental perspective, residing in high-crime streets can act as an environment that influences not only the alterations in the functioning of FSCs but also their overall developmental trajectory associated with antisocial tendencies and the expression of antisocial behaviours.

INTERACTION BETWEEN CRIME HOT SPOTS AND NEURAL MATURATION

The developmental origins of cognitive, emotional and behavioural functions lie in the combination of genetic and neurobiological factors (inherent potential) and environmental factors (actualization). From birth and throughout childhood and adulthood, there are critical times in brain development in which pre-prepared structures, with which the infant is born, need environmental stimulation to develop and strengthen (Gogtay et al. Reference Gogtay, Giedd, Lusk, Hayashi, Greenstein, Vaituzis, Nugent, Herman, Clasen, Toga, Rapoport and Thompson2004; Shors et al. Reference Shors, Anderson, Curlik and Nokia2012). The beginning of the development of the gross architectural structure of the brain is already rooted in the prenatal period so that by the middle of the pregnancy, the process of dividing the neurons, called “organogenesis”, ends (Wallén, Auvinen, and Kaminen-Ahola Reference Wallén, Auvinen and Kaminen-Ahola2021). The most important critical development already occurs in the first period of life. From the moment of birth until around the age of three years, the human brain gradually produces about 1,000 trillion connections between the different neurons that are organized into separate neural networks, which are most important for the development of various cognitive functions, including memory, attention and language acquisition and socio-emotional behaviour (Brenhouse and Andersen Reference Brenhouse and Andersen2011; Lisman Reference Lisman2015; Stiles and Jernigan Reference Stiles and Jernigan2010; Stiles et al. Reference Stiles, Brown, Haist, Jernigan and Lerner2015; Wade et al. Reference Wade, Prime, Jenkins, Yeates, Williams and Lee2018). During this period, the rate of growth and changes in the brain’s nervous system is extremely rapid, and the human brain reaches 90% of the size of the adult brain. Afterwards, there is a slowdown until the age of 10 years (Dubois et al. Reference Dubois, Alison, Counsell, Hertz-Pannier, Hüppi and Benders2021; Stiles Reference Stiles2017). The design of the brain is a long and complex programming process that is carried out by the instruction of a large and branched set of genes (Barbas Reference Barbas2000). Flexibility in neuron programming during critical periods of development, including the period of puberty, is a significant factor with long-term effects on behaviour (Kanherkar, Bhatia-Dey, and Csoka Reference Kanherkar, Bhatia-Dey and Csoka2014; Palumbo et al. Reference Palumbo, Mariotti, Iofrida and Pellegrini2018). However, brain development, especially during critical periods, is experience dependent and goes beyond the simple modulation of plasticity (Brzosko, Mierau, and Paulsen Reference Brzosko, Mierau and Paulsen2019; Tierney and Nelson Reference Tierney and Nelson2009; Tremblay Reference Tremblay2015). It can be said that experience forms and shapes the anatomical and functional structures of the brain (Tremblay Reference Tremblay2015).

In the realm of psychosocial factors, adverse childhood experiences, including emotional and physical neglect, hold the potential to disrupt communication within the primary neural subcortical circuits associated with the socio-emotional system. This disruption, in turn, can interfere with the typical development of cortical areas (Stiles Reference Stiles2017; Vasung et al. Reference Vasung, Turk, Ferradal, Sutin, Stout, Ahtam, Lin and Grant2019) associated with the cognitive control system. The same principles can be applied to factors linked to attributes of crime hot spots, such as exposure to chronic community violence exposure and criminal acts on the streets, as well as physical factors that are known to contribute to persistent stressors (McEwen Reference McEwen2017; Sargent et al. Reference Sargent, Wilkins, Phan and Gaylord-Harden2022), which, in turn, has the potential to disrupt the natural processes of neuron proliferation and differentiation, giving rise to neural circuits that underlie emotional and cognitive functions associated with antisocial behaviours, such as aggressiveness and externalizing disorders (Chong et al. Reference Chong, Gordis, Hunter, Amoh, Strully, Appleton and Tracy2022; Palumbo et al. Reference Palumbo, Mariotti, Iofrida and Pellegrini2018; Saxbe et al. Reference Saxbe, Khoddam, Piero, Stoycos, Gimbel, Margolin and Kaplan2018; Tremblay, Vitaro, and Côté Reference Tremblay, Vitaro and Côté2018).

There is a growing body of research on the influence of maternal exposure to community adversity, including crime, on infant brain development during pregnancy (Ahmad et al. Reference Ahmad, Rudd, LeWinn, Mason, Murphy, Juarez, Karr, Sathyanarayana, Tylavsky and Bush2022; Barker et al. Reference Barker, Cecil, Walton, Houtepen, O’Connor, Danese, Jaffee, Jensen, Pariante, McArdle, Gaunt, Relton and Roberts2018; Miguel et al. Reference Miguel, Pereira, Silveira and Meaney2019). For example, a study recently carried out by Brady et al. (Reference Brady, Rogers, Prochaska, Kaplan, Lean, Smyser, Shimony, Slavich, Warner, Barch, Luby and Smyser2022) combined the criminology of place with a neurobiological approach to look at the possible effect of maternal exposure to crime on newborn brain connectivity. Using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging, researchers found that living in high-crime neighbourhoods during pregnancy affected newborn front-limbic connectivity over and above other individual- and neighbourhood-level adversity and that these associations were mediated by maternal psychosocial stress. Specifically, it was found that weaker connectivity between the thalamus–anterior default mode network (DMN) and the amygdala–hippocampus is directly associated with neighbourhoods with high rates of crime. The DMN includes brain areas in the socio-emotional and cognitive systems and is closely related to empathy, theory of mind and morality (Li, Mai, and Liu Reference Li, Mai and Liu2014).

In this massive process of brain development, genes also play an important role in shaping behaviour through molecular coding of the neurons that control or dictate brain function, which in turn controls behaviour (Lenroot and Giedd Reference Lenroot and Giedd2008; Robinson, Fernald, and Clayton Reference Robinson, Fernald and Clayton2008). Genes affect the neural environment and thus also behaviour in various ways. They are involved in determining the number of neurons, their characteristics and the nature of connections within and between brain regions. Another way in which genes affect behaviour is by regulating the level of activity and expression of neuroreceptors in the brain that respond to the neurotransmitters acting on them (Dang, O’Neil, and Jagust Reference Dang, O’Neil and William Jagust2013; Robinson et al. Reference Robinson, Fernald and Clayton2008). For example, dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine receptors are associated with violent behaviours, addictions, impulsivity, attention disorders and low cognitive control (Fernàndez-Castillo and Cormand Reference Fernàndez-Castillo and Cormand2016; Kasparek, Theiner, and Filova Reference Kasparek, Theiner and Filova2015; Waltes, Chiocchetti, and Freitag Reference Waltes, Chiocchetti and Freitag2016). The external environment is also instrumental in shaping the expression of certain genes. Meta-analyses of genetic studies in the realm of behavioural disorders and antisocial behaviour point to a complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors. These factors encompass various elements, including low socio-economic status, rigid and reactive parenting practices and exposure to violent environments (Figlio et al. Reference Figlio, Freese, Karbownik and Roth2017; Lacourse et al. Reference Lacourse, Boivin, Brendgen, Petitclerc, Girard, Vitaro and Tremblay2014; Tuvblad and Baker Reference Tuvblad and Baker2011; Tuvblad and Beaver Reference Tuvblad and Beaver2013; Wilson, Stover, and Berkowitz Reference Wilson, Smith Stover and Berkowitz2009).

Relatedly, Leshem and Weisburd (Reference Leshem and Weisburd2019) argued that crime hot spots function as violent and stressful environments and thus have long-term, possibly intergenerational, impacts on brain development in terms of the epigenetic influences of crime hot spots. That is, the interaction between genetic mechanisms and environmental influences may cause structural and functional defects in different brain regions by affecting developmental brain mechanisms (Tremblay and Szyf Reference Tremblay and Szyf2010; Tremblay et al. Reference Tremblay, Vitaro and Côté2018). Furthermore, epigenetic studies show that certain genetic variants can increase the risk of antisocial, aggressive and substance abuse behaviours in the presence of certain environmental risk factors (Caspi et al. Reference Caspi, McClay, Moffitt, Mill, Martin, Craig, Taylor and Poulton2002; Ficks and Waldman Reference Ficks and Waldman2014; Moffitt Reference Moffitt2013), which include parental neglect, physical abuse by parents, exposure (indirect or direct) to repeated violent experiences throughout childhood and adolescence, economic difficulties, low education, participation in criminal groups and residence in distressed neighbourhoods (Anreiter, Sokolowski, and Sokolowski Reference Anreiter, Sokolowski and Sokolowski2018; Byrd and Manuck Reference Byrd and Manuck2014; Cleveland Reference Cleveland2003; Dijkstra et al. Reference Dijkstra, Kretschmer, Pattiselanno, Franken, Vollebergh and Veenstra2015; Ford and Browning Reference Ford and Browning2014; Holz et al. Reference Holz, Zohsel, Laucht, Banaschewski, Hohmann and Brandeis2018; Moffitt Reference Moffitt2013; Tuvblad and Baker Reference Tuvblad and Baker2011). It can be said that our behaviour reflects environmental and neurobiological factors that affect the brain’s ability to adapt to changing environmental demands (Glenn and Raine Reference Glenn and Raine2014; Lenroot and Giedd Reference Lenroot and Giedd2008).

Furthermore, these factors bring us to another critical time during puberty, a “neurological window of opportunity” for the consolidation and strengthening of accelerated and large-scale psychological developmental processes, similar to those that occur mainly in a person’s first years. Starting at about the age of 11 years (the beginning of early puberty), the brain undergoes reorganization and re-optimization, which is manifested in the regrowth of connections and connections between the brain cells, allowing them to create neural networks. The purpose of this reorganization is to enable the brain to respond in an integrated manner to the enormous amount of information coming from the outside and to relate to the growing amount of information accumulated in memory (Brenhouse and Andersen Reference Brenhouse and Andersen2011; Dubois et al. Reference Dubois, Alison, Counsell, Hertz-Pannier, Hüppi and Benders2021; Paus Reference Paus2005; Vasung et al. Reference Vasung, Turk, Ferradal, Sutin, Stout, Ahtam, Lin and Grant2019).

These morphological changes involve regressive (synaptic pruning) and progressive (myelination) biological processes. A regressive process of synaptic pruning occurs when there is a massive loss of connections between neurons. This process occurs because of a significant excess of axons (the long extensions of the neurons), most of which undergo natural “pruning” to ensure that only essential connections remain in the body for the normal activity of the nervous system. In this process, parts of the axons disintegrate and disappear, and some neurons grow new branches that network the adult brain precisely and efficiently (Dow-Edwards et al. Reference Dow-Edwards, MacMaster, Peterson, Niesink, Andersen and Braams2019; Nelson et al. Reference Nelson, O’Neil, Wisnowski, Hart, Sawardekar, Rauh, Perera, Andrews, Hoepner, Garcia, Algermissen, Bansal and Peterson2019; Spear Reference Spear2013; Stiles and Jernigan Reference Stiles and Jernigan2010). The other biological process, which occurs simultaneously, is the progressive process called myelination, which increases the speed at which information passes between nerve cells. From puberty until the early 20s, there is a significant increase in the volume of white matter (tissue in the central nervous system). The white matter consists mostly of nerve cell axons, which serve as conduits for transmitting information within the nervous system (Blakemore and Choudhury Reference Blakemore and Choudhury2006; Cafiero et al. Reference Cafiero, Brauer, Anwander and Friederici2019; Gogtay et al. Reference Gogtay, Giedd, Lusk, Hayashi, Greenstein, Vaituzis, Nugent, Herman, Clasen, Toga, Rapoport and Thompson2004; Paus Reference Paus2010). These two biological processes, which occur in an accelerated manner during puberty, enable efficient and rapid communication in the nervous system, thus enabling more efficient information processing. They enable brain flexibility (neuroplasticity), which is needed to adapt to many social, physical, sexual and intellectual challenges in various areas of life (Casey Reference Casey2015; Dahl Reference Dahl2004; Laube, van den Bos, and Fandakova Reference Laube, van den Bos and Fandakova2020).

The regressive and progressive processes result from environmental experiences and life events, according to which active neural connections are strengthened alongside a decrease in inactive connections and a deliberate death of the neurons at the end of this process (Nelson et al. Reference Nelson, O’Neil, Wisnowski, Hart, Sawardekar, Rauh, Perera, Andrews, Hoepner, Garcia, Algermissen, Bansal and Peterson2019; Shors et al. Reference Shors, Anderson, Curlik and Nokia2012). The brain streamlines and rewires itself when it “gets rid” of connections that are not necessary for adaptation and gradually creates order in a thick tangle of “wires” between the different nerve cells (Mateos-Aparicio and Rodríguez-Moreno Reference Mateos-Aparicio and Rodríguez-Moreno2019). According to Hebb’s (Reference Hebb1949) theory, any two nerve cells or systems of nerve cells that are repeatedly active at the same time tend to be “linked” so that activity in one facilitates activity in the other (Keysers and Gazzola Reference Keysers and Gazzola2014). Therefore, one of the most effective ways to create an efficient brain and more targeted recruitment of different brain areas is to strengthen the synapses through repeated experiences and learning (for extensive reading, see Cooke and Bliss Reference Cooke and Bliss2006; Shors et al. Reference Shors, Anderson, Curlik and Nokia2012). In other words, due to the brain’s flexibility, effective neural activity can be facilitated through learning processes and acquiring knowledge and experiences in everyday life. Therefore, daily experiences with significant others can keep nerve cells “alive” and strengthen the knowledge transfer communication between them (Shors et al. Reference Shors, Anderson, Curlik and Nokia2012). Learning creates the formation of neural circuits and the efficiency of brain activity so that each experience stimulates certain neural circuits and leaves others unaffected. An increase in the effectiveness of synaptic connections, including connections between association areas in the frontal lobes, may support the improvement of executive abilities, such as response inhibition (Luna, Padmanabhan, and O’Hearn Reference Luna, Padmanabhan and O’Hearn2010), strategic planning (Luciana et al. Reference Luciana, Collins, Olson and Schissel2009), impulse regulation (Steinberg et al. Reference Steinberg, Albert, Cauffman, Banich, Graham and Woolard2008) and emotional abilities such as empathy (Iacoboni Reference Iacoboni2009). These cognitive functions are at the basis of social behaviour and play an important role in a person’s ability to cope effectively with the challenges and difficulties that life entails. When impaired, the likelihood of being involved in antisocial behaviour increases (Mariano et al. Reference Mariano, Pino, Peretti, Valenti and Mazza2017; Ogilvie et al. Reference Ogilvie, Stewart, Chan and Shum2011; Seruca and Silva Reference Seruca and Silva2016).

In the context of our discussion, neurobiological factors may significantly contribute to understanding individual differences in early childhood regarding antisocial tendencies and their persistence over time. Conversely, environment-based socialization processes can help explain individual differences in expressing these tendencies throughout one’s life (Pingault et al. Reference Pingault, Rijsdijk, Zheng, Plomin and Viding2015).

Living in crime hot spots encompasses social characteristics that promote an antisocial culture, which is relevant to learning processes and can be elucidated through place-based social disorganization theories. One of these aspects relates to collective efficacy, which refers to a community’s level of social cohesion and the extent to which residents are willing to intervene to maintain social control in the neighbourhood. In crime hot spots, collective efficacy is low, accompanied by a lack of mutual trust among neighbours, partly due to frequent turnover among residents (Braga Reference Braga2005). This concept aligns with the broken windows theory, which posits that when disorderly behaviour goes unaddressed by residents and law enforcement, potential offenders perceive the neighbourhood as lacking social control, leading to an increase in serious crimes over time. This perpetuates a cycle, sustaining high crime rates, exposing residents to violence and drug trafficking and reinforcing the adoption of antisocial norms and attitudes. Consequently, the brain can change itself, or rewire itself, in response to relearning when one’s experiences are associated with immoral and antisocial behaviours or when they are associated with moral and prosocial behaviours.

Crime hot spots not only influence the development of neurobiological dysfunctions underlying antisocial tendencies but also shape the expression of these tendencies. While the neural factors described above predispose individuals to antisocial behaviour, the deficits manifested in a given situation also depend on situational demands and stimulus types, which can deferentially activate different regions in the socio-emotional and cognitive control systems. In other words, abnormal functioning in these regions will not necessarily result in antisocial behaviour but rather create antisocial tendencies that manifest differently depending on external stimuli and demands. This can be explained by opportunity theories, which focus on crime problems and examine the opportunity structures of particular places or situations to explain why crime is more prevalent in some areas than in others. Crime is not randomly distributed across cities and jurisdictions; instead, opportunities for criminal activity are concentrated in specific places. These opportunities arise due to suitable targets (physical items or potential victims) and a lack of effective guardianship (community residents and police), creating crime opportunities. Combined with the rational choice perspective, which assumes that individuals with antisocial tendencies seek to benefit themselves through criminal behaviour, we see that criminal decision-making involves weighing costs and benefits. This process, constrained by limited emotional and cognitive abilities (e.g. sensitivity to rewards, poor inhibitory control), often leads to limited rather than normative rationality (Telep and Hibdon Reference Telep and Hibdon2019).

Taken together, residing in crime hot spots is pivotal in shaping the intricate interplay between brain functions and cognitive–emotional processes, consequently exerting a profound influence on social behaviour. As expounded upon earlier, adversity and exposure to stressors possess the capacity to disrupt biophysiological developmental processes within the brain, ultimately leading to the modification of neural circuits associated with antisocial behavioural traits, such as delinquency and aggression (McAdams, Gregory, and Eley Reference McAdams, Gregory and Eley2013; Schriber and Guyer Reference Schriber and Guyer2016; Tremblay Reference Tremblay2015; Wootton et al. Reference Wootton, Davis, Mottershaw, Wang and Haworth2017). In parallel, positive life experiences can nurture and fortify brain function and adaptive behaviours (McAdams et al. Reference McAdams, Gregory and Eley2013; Wootton et al. Reference Wootton, Davis, Mottershaw, Wang and Haworth2017).

Consequently, behavioural manifestations represent the intricate interplay between environmental and biological factors, fundamentally influencing the brain’s capacity to adapt to evolving ecological demands (Glenn and Raine Reference Glenn and Raine2014; Lenroot and Giedd Reference Lenroot and Giedd2008). In simpler terms, mental wellbeing and (anti)social behaviour are outcomes of bidirectional phenotypic adaptation to both internal and external environments (De Fano et al. Reference De Fano, Leshem and Ben-Soussan2019; Wootton et al. Reference Wootton, Davis, Mottershaw, Wang and Haworth2017). This bidirectional relationship underscores the dynamic nature of human behaviour and its susceptibility to environmental influences, particularly relevant to crime hot spots.

IMPLICATION AND CONCLUSIONS

Over the last two decades, there has been growing recognition of the importance of micro-geographic areas in producing crime problems (Braga and Clarke Reference Braga and Clarke2014; Weisburd et al. Reference Weisburd, Eck, Braga, Telep, Cave, Bowers, Bruinsma, Gill, Groff, Hibdon, Hinkle, Johnson, Lawton, Lum, Ratcliffe, Rengert, Taniguchi and Yang2016). While the individual and “macro” units of place, such as the community, have long been a focus of research about antisocial behaviour, the “micro” approach to places suggested by recent theories has just begun to be examined (Weisburd, Bernasco, and Bruinsma Reference Weisburd, Bernasco and Bruinsma2009). Specifically, while the criminology of place refers to micro-geographic units, hot spots of crime refer to a small place that generates half of all criminal events on a micro-geographical level (Braga Reference Braga2005; Weisburd Reference Weisburd, Waring and Weisburd2002; Weisburd et al. Reference Weisburd, Bushway, Cynthia and Sue-Ming2004) and, as such, allows analysis and explanation at a higher level of resolution of crime phenomena. Even within the most crime-ridden neighbourhoods, crime clusters are in a few discrete locations. Thus, focusing resources on a small number of high-activity crime places is straightforward. As previous studies have shown, if we can prevent crime at these hot spots, we might reduce total crime (see Braga, Papachristos, and Hureau Reference Braga, Papachristos and Hureau2012; Braga et al. Reference Braga, Turchan, Papachristos and Hureau2019b; Weisburd et al. Reference Weisburd, Telep, Vovak, Zastrow, Braga and Turchan2022). A relevant discussion is the interaction between place-based environmental factors and brain mechanisms and how they affect antisocial behaviour in larger social units, such as neighbourhoods (Farrington Reference Farrington2005; Gard et al. Reference Gard, Waller, Shaw, Forbes, Hariri and Hyde2017; Hill, Ross, and Angel Reference Hill, Ross and Angel2005; Hyde et al. Reference Hyde, Gard, Tomlinson, Burt, Mitchell and Monk2020; Murray et al. Reference Murray, Shenderovich, Gardner, Milton, Derzon, Liu and Eisner2018; Portnoy et al. Reference Portnoy, Raine, Rudo-Hutt, Gao and Monk2020). Importantly, it illustrates the added value of a hot-spot approach at the rehabilitation and reinforcement levels.

Crime in cities, including Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Israel, is ultimately concentrated in a relatively small number of places characterized by social and physical factors and represents a significant environmental stimulus (Amram, Weisburd, and Shay Reference Amram, Weisburd and Shay2024; Weisburd Reference Weisburd2015; Weisburd and Amram Reference Weisburd and Amram2014; Weisburd, Amram, and Shay Reference Weisburd, Amram, Shay, Ceccato and Armitage2018a; Weisburd et al. Reference Weisburd, Groff and Yang2014). As longitudinal research at the micro-geographic level continues to expand (Schnell and McManus Reference Schnell and McManus2022; Sherman Reference Sherman2022; Weisburd, Groff, and Yang Reference Weisburd, Groff and Yang2012), shedding light on the intricate relationship between social and structural characteristics and the persistence of crime over time, there arises an increasing need for future research in Israel to advance further our understanding of the mechanisms by which the structural attributes of street segments influence criminal activity (Weisburd Reference Weisburd2015; Weisburd and Amram Reference Weisburd and Amram2014).

From these longitudinal studies elucidating the consistency in crime rates, various explanations emerge within the field of sociocriminology. One such explanation revolves around the concept of collective efficacy, emphasizing the significance of social cohesion among neighbours and their willingness to intervene for the common good. This notion closely aligns with the social disorganization framework (Kuen et al. Reference Kuen, Weisburd, White and Hinkle2022; Weisburd et al. Reference Weisburd, Shay, Amram, Zamir, Weisburd and John2017). Another perspective, rooted in opportunity theories, posits that crimes occur when the routine activities of potential offenders and victims intersect without guardians. Opportunity theory delves into how both built and social environments shape human behaviour, providing insights into why crime tends to concentrate in specific locations. Crucial place-related characteristics, such as the nature of custodianship, the presence of motivation to offend and the availability of suitable targets, yield significant influence over the likelihood of criminal events (Groff, Weisburd and Yang Reference Groff, Weisburd and Yang2010; Weisburd et al. Reference Weisburd, Bushway, Cynthia and Sue-Ming2004).

These explanations encompass factors such as poor social integration, concentrated disadvantage and frequent turnover in residents, all of which can contribute to the breakdown of social ties and informal social control. The social ties, commitment and solidarity within the external environment are intricately linked to the quality and nature of connections between neural networks. Enhancing these social elements can activate brain regions responsible for empathy and the ability to perceive the needs of others (e.g. Iacoboni Reference Iacoboni2009; Jordan Reference Jordan2023).

Thus, in addition to allocating resources for crime prevention and reduction in these areas, there lies the potential to contribute to developing a healthier brain (Gard et al. Reference Gard, Maxwell, Shaw, Mitchell Colter, McLanahan, Forbes, Monk and Hyde2021). This healthier brain would be characterized by effective and balanced communication between neural circuits responsible for socio-emotional and cognitive functions, ultimately promoting prosocial behaviour.

Our brains are wired to be social, to adapt to and to learn from the environment, and this is also the (negative) power of micro-geographic crime areas on neural substrates for (anti)social behaviours. Hot spots characterized by social disorder, crime and physical disorder are attributed to antisocial behaviour (Hart and Miethe Reference Hart and Miethe2015; Santana-Arias et al. Reference Santana-Arias, George, Padron-Salas, Sarahí Sanjuan-Meza, Landeros-Olvera and Cossio-Torres2021) and thus constitute fertile ground for antisocial tendencies, which in turn act on the brain and affect behaviour. At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that, due to the complexity of the interrelationships between neurological and environmental determinants, studies focusing on only one of these components cannot comprehensively clarify the causes and foundations of antisocial behaviour. Although terms such as “criminal brain” or “psychopath’s brain” can be found in the academic literature (e.g. Canavero Reference Canavero2014; Hofhansel et al. Reference Hofhansel, Weidler, Votinov, Clemens, Raine and Habel2020), it is not possible to unequivocally associate a structural or functional neural pattern with antisocial behaviour (Carlisi et al. Reference Carlisi, Moffitt, Knodt, Harrington, Melzer, Poulton, Ramrakha, Caspi, Hariri and Viding2020; Fallon Reference Fallon2006). Similarly, while environmental factors are considered risk factors for antisocial behaviour, they will not necessarily lead individuals exposed to them to engage in antisocial behaviour (Wertz et al. Reference Wertz, Caspi, Belsky, Beckley, Arseneault, Barnes, Corcoran, Hogan, Houts, Morgan, Odgers, Prinz, Sugden, Williams, Poulton and Moffitt2018). Further research combining social and psychological developmental theories with brain structures and functions in the context of antisocial behaviours is extremely important for reaching in-depth theoretical and applied understandings, which may enable Israel’s policymakers to deal with the phenomenon of criminality and recidivism comprehensively.

The criminology of place – and more specifically, crime hot spots – combined with a neuro-criminological approach creates new possibilities for rethinking, explaining, predicting and coping with antisocial behaviours. The added value of the hot-spots approach lies not only in the fact that the high concentration of crime in cities is ultimately found in certain street segments but also in the fact that crime concentration levels are consistent across time despite significant declines in crime during the same period (Braga et al. Reference Braga, Turchan, Papachristos and Hureau2019a, b; Weisburd Reference Weisburd2018; Weisburd et al. Reference Weisburd, Groff and Yang2014). This constancy provides another reason for the targeted examination of the interaction between these small areas of crime and the neurobiological processes underlying antisocial behaviour in Israel and other countries around the world. An examination of crime by street segment makes it possible to invest resources to prevent and reduce crime in an efficient and targeted manner. We can create a nurturing environment with a low rate of crime and violence by allocating resources at the policing and enforcement level as well as the community and individual level – establishing programmes not only to reduce crime but also to bolster positive environments and neural health through education (Staneiu Reference Staneiu2023; Walhovd, Lövden, and Fjell Reference Walhovd, Lövden and Fjell2023), employment centres for integration into workplaces and training programmes for families (Grasset et al. Reference Grasset, Glymour, Elfassy, Swift, Yaffe, Singh-Manoux and Al Hazzouri2019; Hyde et al. Reference Hyde, Gard, Tomlinson, Burt, Mitchell and Monk2020; Weissman et al. Reference Weissman, Hatzenbuehler, Cikara, Barch and McLaughlin2023).