Is Criminal Behavior Determined Biologically?
Nature vs. nurture has been one of the oldest and most debated topics among psychologists over the years. This concept discusses whether a child is born into this world with their developmental work cut out for them or if a child is a “blank slate” and their experiences are what shape them into who they are. Over the years and plenty of research, psychologists have all mostly come to agree that it’s a little bit of both. Children are both born with some genetic predispositions while other aspects of the child’s development are strongly influenced by their surrounding environment. This plays into the criminal justice system when discussing where criminal behavior stems from. Is a criminal’s anti-social behavior just part of their DNA or is it a result of their upbringing? The answer to this question is not definite. Looking at research a strong argument can be made that criminals developed their anti-social patterns through the atmosphere in which they were raise, not their DNA.
On the contrary an individual may have innate personality traits that might make them more susceptible to anti-social patterns; For instance, those who are born into families that have a history of mental illness. As stated by professionals at the Stanford School of Medicine, “If someone has a parent or sibling with major depression, that person probably has a 2 or 3 times greater risk of developing depression compared with the average person” (Levinson & Nichols, 2015). Mental disorders can contribute to the likelihood of an individual participating in criminal behavior. Those who can’t afford medical insurance or don’t have access to psychiatric help, might turn to illegal drugs to help self-medicate. It’s b...
... middle of paper ...
...gh juveniles. Intervention at an early age when juveniles are still easily influenced could be beneficial in breaking this cycle of criminal behavior in their family. It would be difficult to target the adults as some may see no wrong in their actions, and also because they have already developed and become accustomed to this type of life style. Attempting to correct a grown adult so they don’t pass on their behaviors to their children would be nonproductive. The best way to go about ceasing criminal behavior would be to intervene with delinquent juveniles through the school system or after school programs. I would not suggest techniques such as “Scared Straight” the TV program that attempts to scare youth by taking them to local prisons. After school programs that encourage delinquents to be apart of a positive atmosphere would likely be the best tactic.
References
Within the past decade there has been a wide range of research and evidence available based on both sides of the nature or nurture debate. Along with further research that identifies a number of determinants that have some form of influence towards criminal behavior and activity. This researc...
Trait Theory suggests that the criminal behavior that one may partake in is related to personality traits inherited at birth. “Psychological traits are stable personality patterns that tend to endure throughout the life course and across social and cultural contexts.” (Schmalleger, 2016) This theory also suggests that these traits give criminals “predispositions to respond to a given situation in
Individuals' personalities and overall quality of living are significantly influenced by several interrelated sources ranging from one's upbringing and quality of relationships to their own feelings of self-esteem and worth. Though this may seem relatively easy and un-complex, countless people today are engaged in persistent antisocial, criminal behavior, and seem unable to find an alternative, legal, means of living. While many have tried to explain such behavior through various theories, the causes of criminal activity remain to be satisfactorily clarified. Essentially, antisocial criminal activity has two aspects to it. Antisocial behavior is that in which one shuns society and others, while criminal activity is the act of performing a deed that violates an established law of the community. Obviously, such actions have serious consequences, which can range from community service and a fine to prison time. Even though there are several reasons that one may become an antisocial criminal, two theories of personality that provide reasonable explanations of this phenomenon, each in their own way, are the psychoanalytic and phenomenological theories.
The case of whether serial killers are born with the lust to kill or if they are truly victims of their environment has been a hot debated question by both psychologists and the FBI today. A serial killer is traditionally defined as one that kills 3 or more people at different times with “cooling off” periods in between kills. Both psychological abuse as a child and psychological disorders are to blame for the making of a killer. The nature vs. nurture debate is best applied to the mysterious behaviors and cases of serial killers and their upbringing and environment. Nature is the genetic and biological connections a person has, personality traits, and how genetic make-up all relates to a killer. Nurture is examining the upbringing and environment that a person is around that affects what a person becomes. In some cases however, the effects of only upbringing or only biological problems were the reasons certain serial killers committed crimes. Although there is no definitive answer to what plays the bigger role: nature or nurture, they both are contributing factors that make a serial killer. These deviants of society are afflicted with problems in either their upbringing or have psychological disorders, and are able to blend into our everyday lives with no apparent differences, yet they wreck havoc through their unremorseful killings.
Despite much controversy surrounding the notion of inherited criminal tendencies, there is much evidence to support such theories. Although Lombroso may have employed his theoretic atavisms in an attempt to provide a biologically deterministic method of reducing or preventing crime, they have ultimately lead to an abandonment of gravitas concerning such a notion. However, as myopic as Lombroso's theories of criminality being a hereditary trait appears (Mannheim, 1965) research has shown shared physical characteristics to be commonplace in explicating the argument of genetic criminal behaviour. Although Lombroso presented...
In the news today there is an article about a high-school boy who brought guns to school and shot several students. The parents of the victims are suing various computer game companies saying that the violent games present shooting and killing people as pleasurable and fail to portray realistic consequences. A representative of one of the companies released a statement saying that this is another example of individuals seeking to elude responsibility that has become so common in our society. This case is not about software. What is on trial is the age-old debate between nature and nurture, which also lies at the center of Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment.
Criminal behavior can mostly be explained by the Biosocial Branch of Trait Theory. Individual traits by themselves cannot determine criminality. Outside factors such as the environment along with certain personality traits is what causes criminal behavior.
1. Cesare Lombroso applied the methods of natural science (observation, measurement, experimentation, statistical analysis) to the study of criminal behavior. Lombroso rejected the classical theory of crime, associated with Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, which explained criminal activity as freely chosen behavior based on the rational calculation of benefit and loss, pleasure and pain. Critically analyze both schools of thought and provide an opinion as to what theory you believe is more relevant.
There has always been a fascination with trying to determine what causes an individual to become a criminal? Of course a large part of that fascination has to do with the want to reduce crime, and to determine if there is a way to detect and prevent individuals from committing crime. Determining what causes criminality is still not perfectly clear and likewise, there is still debate as to whether crime is caused biologically, environmentally, or socially. Furthermore, the debate is directly correlated to the notion of 'nurture vs nature'. Over time many researchers have presented various theories pertaining to what causes criminal behavior. There are many theories that either support or oppose the concept of crime being biological rather than a learned behavior.
In this article the two authors research the connection between genetic factors and criminal behavior. They look at the causes that make someone act in a criminal way. There are several factors looked at in connection to the cause such as social factors and environmental variables. The social factors being the more examined of the two. They hypothesized that other factors in performance or alone with environmental variables would lead to better understanding of why some people become criminal. The genetic factor of influence due to mental disorders was posed to have a slight role in affecting people to show criminal behavior. Another cause looked at was the combination of genetic and environmental factors, with a possible result of having a higher risk for criminal behavior.
Murder, robbery, prostitution, rape; what exactly makes people partake in these crimes? The debate of Nature vs Nurture has never failed to raise questions about people’s personalities and actions. Whether a person commits a crime because of their innate character vs the way they were raised is something that people have been trying to understand for years. Due to this fact, the biosocial perspective of criminology does the best job at explaining criminal behavior because it combines the aspects of nature vs. nurture through various types of family, twin, and adoption studies and studies of the brain.
Criminals are born not made is the discussion of this essay, it will explore the theories that attempt to explain criminal behaviour. Psychologists have come up with various theories and reasons as to why individuals commit crimes. These theories represent part of the classic psychological debate, nature versus nurture. Are individuals predisposed to becoming a criminal or are they made through their environment.
The distinction between nature versus nurture or even environment versus heredity leads to the question of: does the direct environment or the nature surrounding an adolescent directly influence acts of delinquency, later progressing further into more radical crimes such as murder or psychotic manifestation, or is it directly linked to the hereditary traits and genes passed down from that individual adolescent’s biological parents? To answer this question one must first understand the difference between nature, nurture, environment, and heredity. Nurture, broken down further into environment, is defined as various external or environmental factors one is exposed to which can be more specifically broken down into social and physical aspects. Nature, itself broken down into heredity, is defined as the genetics and the individual characteristics in one’s personality or even human nature.
Criminality constitutes strategic mannerisms characterized by apathy to misery inflicted on others, egocentricity and depressed self-control. Habitual criminal behaviour seeks to satisfy the offender’s desires for material prestige, power or pleasurable feelings regardless to damage inflicted to victim or society. Such behaviors extend mistrust, fuel prejudice, and largely corrupt social cohesion. Biological, psychological and environmental attributes are thought to heavily influence antisocial and criminal behaviour. Numerous studies have proven that active emulation, genetic predispositions and psychosocial labeling are all complementary to development and expressions of criminal behaviour. There has historically been a myriad of theories that attempt to explain criminal behaviour through different perspectives, all which constitute intricate paradigms that play a role in expressio...
Theories that are based on biological Factors and criminal behavior have always been slightly ludicrous to me. Biological theories place an excessive emphasis on the idea that individuals are “born badly” with little regard to the many other factors that play a part in this behavior. Criminal behavior may be learned throughout one’s life, but there is not sufficient evidence that proves crime is an inherited trait. In the Born to Be Bad article, Lanier describes the early belief of biological theories as distinctive predispositions that under particular conditions will cause an individual to commit criminal acts. (Lanier, p. 92) Biological criminologists are expected to study the “criminal” rather than the act itself. This goes as far as studying physical features, such as body type, eyes, and the shape or size of one’s head. “Since criminals were less developed, Lombroso felt they could be identified by physical stigmata, or visible physical abnormalities…characteristics as asymmetry of the face; supernumerary nipples, toes, or fingers; enormous jaws; handle-shaped or sensible ears; insensibility to pain; acute sight; and so on.” (Lanier. P. 94). It baffles me that physical features were ever considered a reliable explanation to criminal behavior. To compare one’s features to criminal behavior is not only stereotypical, but also highly unreliable.