As the act of criminality is a global phenomenon, there must therefore be some explanation as to why this is; some schools of thought strive to explicate this by means of genetics, whilst others take a more socially influenced approach. Although at the time, the micro-criminological theories of Lombroso and Sheldon may have appeared credible, modern research has attempted to refute such notions. In an epidemiological context, the act of crime is seen by some as a positive contribution to society, as noted by Durkheim (Kirby et al, 2000), although too much will lead to social instability, or anomie. In contrariety to Durkheim's beliefs, a Marxist perspective would consider the mere notion of capitalism as criminal; thus deeming the vast majority of global society to be in a constant state of anomie. However, there is still much dispute as to whether people are born, or made into criminals. This essay will discuss the arguments within this debate. To be ‘born’ criminal indicates a genetic heredity whereas if one is ‘made’; the environmental influences are the significant factor in creation of criminal behaviour.
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...
... middle of paper ...
...e fact it does not claim people will be born destined to commit criminal offences, but rather suggests an inherent predisposition towards such behaviours, which can be influenced by societal factors.
In furthering a genetically predisposed and socially-influenced explanation, there is an abundance of considerations when explicating criminal behaviour; for example, a non aggressive, psychologically sound individual may be influenced by peer pressure into recreational drug usage, as “Psychoactive drug abuse commonly results from a combination of low self-esteem, peer pressure, inadequate coping skills, and curiosity.” (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005) therefore suggesting that light recreational drug abuse can accrue to a dependence due to a multitude of social influences, which invariably leads to further crime in order to financially support an addiction.
Due to an increased surge of criminality in many cities during the 1900s, eugenicists began to focus on the role of genes in determining criminal behavior. Many lived by the motto “culture does not make the man, but man makes the culture.” This essentially stated that the less fortunate tend to create and gravitate towards poverty stricken environments. While scientists did not totally weigh out the environmental influence on criminality, they did believe the main cause of criminal behavior was defective genes.
Wilson, Jim. Criminal Genes. Popular Science. Pars International Corp. New York, NY. November 12, 2002. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282176.html
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.
Furthermore, criminologists studied the following physical differences in attempt to establish biological links to criminal behavior, which include physiognomy, phrenology, criminal anthropology, body types, and heredity (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). In addition to those studies, advances in modern technology have permitted criminologist to examine brain function and structure in relation to crime (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). Consequently, there was tremendous skepticism surrounding early biocriminolgy due to lack of validity; however, modern biocriminologists explore how biological factors and environmental factors lead to the development of certain traits that are linked to antisocial behavior (Bohm & Vogel, 2011, p. 42). Over the last twenty years researchers have uncovered biological factors that predispose individuals to antisocial behavior, and researchers characterize antisocial behavior by a violation of the basic rights of others (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). Subsequently, antisocial behavior is classified as crime, violence, delinquency, and other behaviors outside the societal norms (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). Additionally, after examining thirty-nine studies, researchers concluded that genetic and environmental factors interact to give rise to biological and social risk factors for antisocial and violent behaviors (Bohm & Vogel, 2011, p.
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.
I also see that the scholars “underestimate the resiliency of the criminal justice system,” and that this evidence cannot be completely denied. Since I cannot effectively argue properly researched science I would have to stay that some are possibly prone to criminal behavior for genetic reasons but on a minority. From my standpoint I would have to agree with Jones’s conclusion that the criminal justice system will neither crumble from nor ignore the new genetic research but rather integrate it on some level in its
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.
Criminals come from all walks of life. Some are wealthy business owners while others are poverty-stricken and homeless. Some are 60 years old while others are 16. What makes people decide to become a criminal? Why does one person who gets arrested and faces punishment learn from the mistake and does nothing illegal again while others become prison regulars? Criminological theory seeks to answer these questions in an effort to mold societal influence and implement programs to deter people from committing crimes. One such theory is the classical theory. Even though some believe that crime is based mainly on social influencers like in the differential association theory, the classical theory is more accurate because it suggests that each person makes the choice to commit a crime based on risk versus reward and because most intentional criminal acts pay some sort of benefit, rarely are they seen as not profitable.
... 86). Hence why I believe that criminal behaviour is influenced by mixture of a persons social background, life chances and pathology
In today’s society, one will find that there are many different factors that go into the development of a criminal mind, and it is impossible to single out one particular cause of criminal behavior. Criminal behavior often stems from both biological and environmental factors. In many cases criminals share similar physical traits which the general population do not usually have. For example criminals have smaller brains than properly adjusted individuals. However biological reasons cannot solely be the cause of criminal behavior. Therefore, one must look to other sources as to how a criminal mind is developed. Social and environmental factors also are at fault for developing a person to the point at which they are lead to committing a criminal act. Often, someone who has committed a violent crime shows evidence of a poorly developed childhood, or the unsuitable current conditions in which the subject lives. In addition if one studies victimology which is the role that the victim plays in the crime, it is apparent that there are many different causes for criminal behavior. Through the examination of biological factors, in addition to the social and environmental factors which make up a criminal mind, one can conclude that a criminal often is born with traits common to those of criminals, it is the environment that exist around them that brings out the criminal within them to commit indecent acts of crime.
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.
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.
I now know that criminology prefer to highlight the correlations between crimes’ social climates and criminals’ psychological states of mind. While some argues that criminal behavior is a result of individuals’ association with criminal peers, other claims that crime is a reflection of an individual’s genetic disadvantages. I have come to learn that there are no universally agreed formulas on decoding crimes and criminal behaviors. What we have, however, is a manual full of academic opinions and subjective views that have emerged alongside of the development of criminology. At the same time, the volume of conflicting perspectives that I have stumble upon in studying criminology reminded me again that the success of our current assessment models has yet to be determined. Thus, the study of criminology is an appropriate practice that will further prepare me to conduct meaningful research on legal studies and to provide accurate and in-depth findings in the near