Nature and nurture are no longer a debate; we see the two working together in concert to produce a genuine expression of the individual. The personalities and habits humans acquire in their lives is as much a biological evolution as it is a social or cultural acclimatization. While some people still have the argument that it is nature or it is nurture many people have come to the realization that is has to be both. Both nature and nurture developed who we are and what we become. So the question would remain which one influences us more on if we become a criminal. In that it is meant people that live outside the acceptable social norms of that society that may involve punishment or rehabilitation. The impression that people become criminals due to their inheritable factor has not been a popular idea amongst criminologist and has incited anger amongst a lot of them. There have been amazing findings in the fields of genetics that have encouraged a biological evaluation in other social sciences. This has also steered to the appearance of a criminology sub-field called Biocriminology.
To take a good look at what Biocriminology is we must start at its scientific inception in the 1900’s. Although it was not first call Biocriminology, the odd thing is the field was almost simultaneously developed by three different people in three different countries. Benjamin Rush, an American who lived from 1745-1813, He was most widely known for being one of the signers of the “Declaration of Independence” he developed what he called Moral Derangement. Rush had two writings that influences the belief at the time of the cause of criminal behavior “The Influence of Physical Cause on Moral Faculty” and “Medical Inquiries and Observations upon Di...
... middle of paper ...
...it is said, He can’t handle his money. If we are biologically predisposed to alcoholism we are an alcoholic. It is not a far reach to say people are biologically determined to make wrong decisions. People in the cases know what the right thing to do is; they choose to do something else.
Works Cited
Rush, Benjamin. Medical Inquiries and Observations, upon the Diseases of the Mind. Diss. Philadelphia: Kimber and Richardson, 1812. Print.
Holmes Jr, Oiver Wendle. United States. Supreme Court. 274 U.S. 200, at 207. 1927. Print.
Hitler, Adolph. Mein Kampf. Boston, Massachusetts. : Hough ton Mifflin , 1927. 392. Print.
Rose , Nikolas. Criminal Brain. 1st. New York: New York University Press, 2008. 200-201. Print.
Goodman, Robert. "INTELLIGENCE SCORES AND BEHAVIOR: EVEN A FEW POINTS MATTER." Crime Times. 16.4 (2010): 1. Web. 9 Dec. 2013. .
Finding strong evidence surrounding this topic could be significant to reducing crime rates and addressing the public health issue. What I have learn from research-based evidence and analyzing social and cultural theories, is that criminal behavior is multifaceted and is influenced by a range of determinants in which surrounds the nature versus nurture debate. I believe that nature and nurture both play significant roles to the making of a criminal.
People are uniquely different and because of this reason, they do have different behaviors. Crime is one kind of behavior that an individual can engage in. They are punishable by the law and may be prosecuted by the state (Helfgott, 2008). There are different theories existing that try to explain the actions of criminals. They deeply explain what causes an individual to commit a criminal activity. This paper discusses some examples of the biological theories, social theories and psychological theories of crime.
Ritter, Malcolm. “Experts Link Teen Brains’ Immaturity, Juvenile Crime.” Usatoday. Associated Press, 2 Dec. 2007. Web. 16 Dec. 2013.
1. There are a couple of differences and similarities between the classical and biological theories of criminology. The biological theories of crime support the idea that an individual commits a crime due to their biological make-up and had criminal tendencies because of certain abnormalities that an individual may have had and not because the offender in their right mind chose to commit the crime. The classical theory has the belief that every individual has their own right in the way in which they act upon, so they commit a crime because they choose to do so, not because it is in their biological make-up.
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.
However as research in to the causes of criminality has developed, we have now come to understand that these aspects of appearance do not contribute to the likelihood of someone becoming criminal. Osborn and West (1979) furthered this study of genetics by comparing the criminality of parents to children and found that the children that had parents with a criminal record have a 40% chance that they will also go on to commit crime (ref). Although this seems to give fairly substantial support the link between genetics and criminality, on the other hand 60% of the children did not go on to commit crime so this study does not have strong support for the criminal gene. Other suggestions have been made that links biology to criminality such as personality traits leading people to be more likely to be come criminal. Hans Eysenck (1977) suggested that individual differences originated in aspects of biology. One example of a personality trait that is used to explain this concept is neuroticism and how this is developed from a difference in arousal levels of the nervous system compared to ‘normal’ people, and this is established in development through childhood (ref). Overall the biological approach does contribute some valuable points to the study of
Biological crime theory describes that an individual is born with the desire to commit a certain crime. Evolutionary factors influence an individual’s involvement in criminal behavior. “Biological theories focus on aspects of the physical body, such as inherited genes, evolutionary factors, brain structures, or the role of hormones in influencing behavior” (Marsh, I, 2006, 3). Murderers that are innate to kill are born with factors such as mental illnesses that are the driving force as to why one may kill. Because of the biological crime theory, some individuals, though rare, are able to plead insanity. This is because the actions of the individual are said to be beyond their control (Ministry of Justice, 2006, 3).
Trait theory views criminality as a product of abnormal biological or psychological traits. It is based on a mix between biological factors and environmental factors. Certain traits alone cannot determine criminality. We are born with certain traits and these traits along with certain environmental factors can cause criminality (Siegel, 2013). According to (Siegel, 2013), the study of sociobiology sparked interest in biological or genetic makeup as an explanation for crime and delinquency. The thought is that biological or genetic makeup controls human behavior, and if this is true, then it should also be responsible for determining whether a person chooses crime or conventional behavior. This theory is referred to as trait theory (Siegel, 2013). According to Siegel (2013), due to the fact that offenders are different, one cannot pinpoint causality to crime to just a single biological or psychological attribute. Trait theorist looks at personal traits like intelligence, personality, and chemical and genetic makeup; and environmental factors, such as family life, educational attainment, economic factors, and neighborhood conditions (Siegel, 2013). There are the Biosocial Trait theories an...
They also explore the myths about the connection between genetic factors and criminal behavior. The first myth they looked at was “Identifying the Role of Genetics in Criminal Behavior Implies That There Is a “Crime Gene.”” This myth is dismissed because of the unlikelihood that that a single gene is responsible for criminal behavior. The second myth they look at is “Attributing Crime to Genetic Factors is Deterministic.” This myth is also easily dismissed because of the fact that just because someone has a predisposition to a certain behavior doesn’t mean that the person will take on that behavior.
In conclusion it is shown through examinations of a average criminals biological makeup is often antagonized by a unsuitable environment can lead a person to crime. Often a criminal posses biological traits that are fertile soil for criminal behavior. Some peoples bodies react irrationally to a abnormal diet, and some people are born with criminal traits. But this alone does not explain their motivation for criminal behavior. It is the environment in which these people live in that release the potential form criminal behavior and make it a reality. There are many environmental factors that lead to a person committing a crime ranging from haw they were raised, what kind of role models they followed, to having a suitable victims almost asking to be victimized. The best way to solve criminal behavior is to find the source of the problem but this is a very complex issue and the cause of a act of crime cannot be put on one source.
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.
Different schools of thought propose varying theoretical models of criminality. It is agreeable that criminal behaviour is deep rooted in societies and screams for attention. Biological, Social ecological and psychological model theories are key to helping researchers gain deeper comprehension of criminal behaviour and ways to avert them before they become a menace to society. All these theories put forward a multitude of factors on the outlooks on crime. All these theories have valid relevancy to continuous research on criminal behaviour.
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.
In contrast to crime science’s concentration on finding the right answers to cease crimes against humanity, criminology emphasizes on the significance of investigating both crimes and criminals independently. If criminology is perceived to interpret crimes, then, criminal science is designated to fix