School violence, family violence, media violence, and others, there are many type of violent crimes happen all the time, and people don’t have a lot of attention to think about what cause those issues. Sometime we walk on the street, we don’t even know who is normal person, and who might be attacked from someone is strange at the next moment. Richard Davidson, Dr. Fallon, and other scientists have found different cause of violent crime in nature and nurture during their studies. Nature is the way we were born, and nurture is the way we grew up, people might doubt about it that how nature and nurture cause violent crimes. There are so many violent movies, games, TV shows, so on that we can see in our life, and our brains and genes also can cause violent because each people have different activity in their brains; however, nurture cause a lot of influence. Genes can cause violent crimes because they influence people development. There are about 20,000 to 25,000 protein-coding genes in human body, and the human genome contains many different regulatory sequences. In “A Family Secret That Has Been Murder to Figure out,” Dr. Fallon studies 20 genetic markers. Gautam Naik states, “One marker, which has been become a big target for research, is MAOA, or the ‘warrior gene’. Because of the way a high-risk variant of the gene gets inherited, more males than females have it” (167). From most of the violent crime, we can know that the …show more content…
If we say nature could affect people become violent, then nurture can be a key to make it stronger. Genes, brains, family factor and political system could affect people become violent, but nurture has directly cause violence happen. Such as a person who has MAOA genes, isn’t become violent because he has a good childhood; however, a bad childhood could affect he become more
When it comes to the topics of violence, murder, and mayhem among children, most will readily agree that children who committed these acts did so because their environmental situation inspired it. However, like me, some are convinced that biological factors are the main reasons children commit violent acts.
Recently, the effect that violent media has on society has been the focus of many psychological studies. According to an article published in the New York Times, research has found that: “Exposure to violent imagery does not preordain violence, but it is a risk factor” (Pozios, Kambam, Bender, 2013). There has yet to be a direct link between violence actually causing people to go on these massive shooting sprees that have been so common lately. It is natural and understandable for the
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.
It is also crucial to consider the genetic makeup of these killers when trying to decipher their motives. New research shows a potential link between a strand of genes and aggression and violence (Bradley-Hagerty). The MAO-A gene or (monoamine oxidase A) has been researched extensively. The gene is often referred to as the “warrior gene” (Bradley-Hagerty). The function of this gene is to regulate serotonin in the brain. However, there are different variations of the gene, one of which is believed to prevent the brain from feeling the relaxing effects of the serotonin (Bradley- Hagerty). Without these calming effects, the person with this version of the gene is genetically predisposed to fits of rage; fits of rage that could potentially lead to murder over and over again.
What is a psychopath? What type of person can be characterized by this and how do they come to be? But first before we can answer these questions we must first know what a psychopath is. Psychopaths are people suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviors; clinically it is a person who has a lack of what we would consider a conscience. Psychopaths are seen to suffer from a lack of empathy because of psychological, genetic and environmental factors. Scientists have many theories concerning psychopaths. Scientist do not have a definite clear cut answer on what is the cause for psychopathy but they have many ideas; nature and the nurture of the person. Nature is the genes that the person carries. The nurture of the person when they were a child is simply means how they were treated when they were growing up and/or how they were raised. Some scientists even consider it a possibility that it could be a mixture of the two.
So in Conclusion, some people thinks violence is inherited from there family others like me think its environmental. You choose whether to be a leader or a follower you choose whether or not to become someone and achieve your goals. You don’t let people define who or what you are you
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.
To begin with, numerous reasons for why a child acts in the manner he exhibits and why he continues to exert such dangerous and even fatal schemes. Recent research shows that factors ranging from inherited personality traits to chemical imbalances and damages suffered in the womb can increase the odds that a child will become violent (Johnson 234). Experts argue that no one is predestined to a life of crime. They believe that influences such as repeated abuse, extreme neglect, poverty, media violence, and easy access to guns play the major role in molding children into criminals. The father of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer wonders, "If potential for evil is in the blood that some of us pass on to our children" (Seifert 23).
Most violence comes from not knowing (ignorance) and bad environments. Children act out as a cry for help, when a child is deliberately misbehaving that is a signal that something is wrong in their environment. When
Violence can also be cause by unnatural and natural triggers. Alcohol and drug consumption, considered an unnatural trigger, may cause behaviors that are outside of one’s character and interfere with judgment. It may also be learned as result of exposure to violent media, exposure to home violence, exposure to neighborhood violence, bullying, and placement in hostile situations.
Many influences may push young people such as Lee Boyd Malvo to perform violent acts. Psychological, sociological and biological factors play a coexisting role in young adults life. Violence can be caused by disruptions, damage or undeveloped brain or can be brought on by something else such as economic difficulties or social or cultural difficulties. The nature vs. nurture question has been an ongoing debate. It can be argued that John lee Malvo born with predetermined genes or biological factors that played an integral part in creating his homicidal tendencies or that he become murderous through his surroundings partnered by the psychological influence that Mohammed had over him.
Is human behaviour, including the propensity for violence, acquired or innate? The supposed dichotomy between nature and nurture captures much of modern thought. Rousseau’s tabula rasa—the notion that each person begins as a blank canvas with no inborn characteristics or propensities—is an extreme expression of the nurture argument. Rousseau maintained that human identity is not inherent in every human being and is shaped only by lived experiences (cite). His view and less extreme arguments that favour nurture over nature maintain that violence and warfare are learned behaviours. If an individual has a violent constitution, nurture arguments say that social and environmental circumstances account for that individual’s makeup. Nurture arguments
Nature versus nurture has been argued in attempt to understand how criminals behave. The theory of what influences psychopath and serial killers’ violent and destructive pathways has not been agreed on till this day. Criminals such as psychopaths and serial killers have been researched for the past two decades. Scientists have found that genetics is a determining factor of who becomes a serial killer. It is important to understand the determinants involved within a serial killer, because if these social and environmental causes are discovered, they can be altered and controlled to reduce crime (Lykken, 1993). With more studies, we would therefore prevent mass murders and could assist in significant reductions of crime within society.
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...
There are more contemporary biological theories that have since developed. However, most are still nearly impossible to prove true; for example, the genetic theory of crime in fraternal and identical twins. This study is supposed to provide evidence that those who are born with the same genetically heritable trait are more prone to crime than fraternal twins or siblings because of the ...