More handpicked essays just for you.
Genetic and environmental influences on criminal behavior
Factor affecting criminal behavior
Factors affecting criminal behaviour
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Many scholars have attempted to explain criminal behaviour by identifying a genetic trait or other biological causes or indicator for criminality (Cullen and Agnew, 2011). Ellis and Walsh (2011) argue that while there is not a single “criminal behaviour” genetic trait, there are genetic trait that are associated with crime. They further suggest that these traits might provide evolutionary advantages to their holders in some circumstances. For example, traits such as deception and cheating would likely be evolutionary advantageous to maximizing a male's reproductive capabilities. Ellis and Walsh suggest that these traits might be genetically inherited. This theory of genetic influence does not however suggest that behaviours are genetically determined. Behaviours are still assumed to be learned, with specific genetic traits influencing this process (Ellis and Walsh, 2011).Rowe (2011) suggests a similarly biologically driven theory. He argues that through their impact upon the central and autonomic nervous systems, genetic traits and biological harms can influence personality traits including those which are associated with criminality. In support of this notion are studies that have linked levels of testosterone and aggressiveness, low heart rate and criminality, weak skin conductance and criminality, as well as brain damage and lack of moral judgement (Rowe, 2011).Caspi, et al. (2011) present the theory that there are three super-traits which have various relationships with crime. The three super-traits they discuss are constraint, negative emotionality and positive emotionality. They note that the constraint and negative emotionality super-traits are related to self-control and with it criminality. This suggests that some indi...
... middle of paper ...
...larly intimates. Both the methods and attributes associated with the crime are suggested to be learned. Learning of criminal and anti-criminal behaviour is thought to be similar to learning of other behaviours and attitudes in which the learner assimilates into the culture they are surrounded by (Sutherland and Cressey, 2011). This theory is similar to the Shaw and Mckay's explanation for criminality, but also ventures into the methods by which the attitudes are actually developed. Anderson's description of a culture of violence, that establishes a “code of the street” provides a vivid example of both the environmental conditions described by Shaw and Sutherland and Cressey as well as the learning processes described by Sutherland and Cressey. These clearly environmental and learned factors somewhat weaken the arguments of biological causes presented earlier..
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...
Crime causation began to be a focus of study in the rapidly developing biological and behavioral sciences during the 19th century. Early biological theories proposed that criminal behavior is rooted in biology and based on inherited traits. Cesare Lombroso (1836-1909), an Italian army prison physician, coined the term “atavism” to describe “the nature of the criminal”...
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...
As a social process theory, drift and Neutralization sees a crime to be a part of wider social interactions. It views social order as non objective and non consensual and posits that there is not a single fundamental social goal that is held by all social groups; rather there are many different overlapping social values within a society, both conventional and delinquent: legitimate and illegitimate. Drift and Neutralization Theory posits that individuals learn values and delinquent behaviours through their exposure to sub-cultural values. “Deviant or delinquent (or criminal) subcultures do not reject ‘dominant’ values and beliefs. Instead, there is tension between inclinations to adhere to mainstream values and beliefs.” This sees that criminals can drift between deviant and conventional behaviours and how to use various techniques of neutralisation to rationalise their criminal activity. In analysing McVeigh’s motives, his learned sub cultural values can be examined to demonstrate how he was able to rationalise his violations of the law and how he came to drift from non delinquent to delinquent actions. The techniques of neutralisation; denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of
Biological theory is the concept that focuses on certain biological characteristics that are thought to be associated with an increased risk of engaging in criminal or deviant behavior (Bernard, Snipes & Gerould, 2010). Early biological theories tended to focus on the physical appearance as a distinguishing trait of criminals, whereas modern theories primarily argue that biology is one of many factors that contribute toward criminal behavior (Bernard, Snipes & Gerould, 2010). Early rape theorist included that of Johan Lavater, Fran’s...
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.
The foundation of our legal system rest upon the single philosophy that humans hold their own fate. Even though, we perceive in our daily lives the persistence of causation and effect. Even children understand the simplistic principle that every action will have a reaction. Despite this obvious knowledge, we as a society still implanted the belief that our actions are purely our own. Yet, with the comprehension of force that environmental factors impact our development, we continue to sentence people for crimes committed. Moreover, uncontrollable environmental influences are not the only deterministic factors we ignore in our societal view of crime. One’s biological composition can work against any moral motives that they
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.
Criminologists and sociologist have long been in debate for century's to explain criminal behaviour. The two main paradigms of thought are between 'nature' and 'nurture'. Nature is in reference to a learnt behaviour where a multitude of characteristics, in society influence whether a person becomes deviant such as poverty, physical abuse or neglect. Nurture defines biological features which could inevitability lead to a individuals deviant or criminal behaviour, because criminality is believed by biological positivist to be inherited from a persons parents. However, I believe that criminal behaviour is a mixture of characteristics that lead to deviant acts such as psychological illness & Environmental factors. Therefore, this essay will aim to analyse both biological positivist and psychological positivist perspectives in hope of showing to what extent they play a role in criminal behaviour. Firstly, the essay will look at Cesare Lombroso's research on physical features and how these ideas have moved on to then develop scientific ideas such as genetics to explain criminal behaviour. Secondly, the essay will focus on external factors which may be able to explain criminal behaviour such as the social influences, life chances and Material deprivation.
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.
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.
Human antisocial behaviour is complex and trying to understand it has always proven to be a daunting intelligent task, especially in modern culturally diverse societies. Crime, broadly defined as behaviour through which individuals obtain resources for others through uncouth means, presents as one of the most refractory internal social dilemmas. Understanding individual criminal acts such a murder, rape or motives behind them is intricate, rather their behavioral definitions and causes offers a more clear platform for argumentative reasoning. Criminal behaviour, regardless of manner, involves use of barbaric methodologies to obtain symbolic or material resources. Criminal behavior results from methodical processes that involve intricate interactions among isolated, societal, and environmental factors in people’s lives.
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.