Nature versus nurture, genetics versus environment, or biological perspectives versus sociological perspectives; whatever is said, all of these ways of phrasing are theoretical frameworks which have an ongoing debate when it comes to delinquency. The causes of delinquency has mainly rotated around the ideas of it either being a result of a persons genetics or their upbringing. It has also been suggested that delinquency could be arising out of a combination of the two. Either way, people tend to blame delinquency on other factors that could be in play. A lot of time and energy over the years has gone into trying to understand what causes delinquency, and here, we will find which perspective is more convincing and whether or not this puts an …show more content…
The nature versus nurture debate continues, whether it is one view or the other, but what if the best perspective is a combination of the two? Genetic factors related to delinquency and environmental factors related to the social world and delinquency both have their positives and negatives when it comes to the perspectives; but neither of them 100 percent explain delinquency. Genetic (or biological) factors may lead to delinquency, but if we included the sociological perspective in this idea; things like antisocial personality disorder and other conduct disorders, or genetic mutations could be triggered by the surrounding environment (most likely negative environments) making the cause of delinquency to be explained by both perspectives. It is said that in a behavioural genetics study that antisocial personality disorder or “antisocial behaviour” is partly due to genetic factors (41%), partly due to factors in a shared environment (16%), and partly due to non-shared environmental factors(43%) (Orfano, 2010). These statistics show that delinquency can be caused by a combination of nature and nurture. The environment can also affect genetics (and the other way around as well). Since some genetics increase the risk of delinquency, it is possible that environmental influences (like …show more content…
Since the point of this was to pick which perspective is more plausible, saying that the combination of the two probably is not a great answer. Therefore, the sociological perspective seems to be the more convincing argument. This “environment is everything” view seems more convincing because of all the years of research that most are aware of that has gone into the sociological research. This perspective explains how social disorganization and other social environmental factors can transform a person into a delinquent whether or not they were born into it. It is all about the opportunities presented, whether they are illegitimate or not. It also seems more conclusive because people are more likely to side with an argument if they can understand it. This comes from the fact that more people understand environmental factors and the social side of things compared to biological factors and complicated genetics in our everyday life (Levitt, 2013). If that were to change, or an individual has a higher understanding of biology and our genetics, then they may find the biological perspective more convincing. As a result of this, it is very likely that the nature-nurture debate is not over and that unless one perspective can entirely explain delinquency, it will never be over. These two theoretical frameworks; the biological
The study seeks to determine the most prevalent causes among the criminal population that induce a propensity for criminal behavior. There needs to be a balance among attributing behavior to specific causes, but strong causal designs of intervention programs can risk unsuccessful or uncertain program outcomes, although weak causal reasoning cannot be adopted to practical use and the creation of interventions (Borowski, 2003). Past theories occasionally described juvenile delinquency attributed to a single factor: Poverty and social disorganization in neighborhoods, or more proximal causes such as problematic peer influences or ego deficiency (Borowski, 2003). The approach in recent models has been that delinquent behavior is due to a large number of factors operating at different levels, including both proximal and distal factors. The study will be operate from this perspective because it would be difficult to attribute juvenile delinquency, which can take many forms, to a single factor that invariably serves as a cause in all cases.
Juvenile delinquency may evolve around many different factors before it becomes a problem for society to solve. Gender and family structure can be a large and underlining cause of why children enter the criminal justice system. By examining the gender and family makeup, one could better understand how to treat a troubled individual.
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...
The study of Juvenile delinquency and the theories pertaining to it are vital for several reasons. In order to more effectively engage with youths and foster positive behavior and schemas, the individuals must first be understood. The study of theory provides a means of understanding adolescents and the factors that lead to or detract from delinquent behavior. In the case of juvenile delinquent, Jordan Brown, theory helps to provide insight into why an eleven-year-old boy murdered his stepmother.
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.
Children are not just born delinquents; they are products of circumstances, chance, culture and environment. A youth named a delinquent by circumstance and chance is a youth who has been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Usually, the juvenile who commits a delinquent act by chance is a part of a gang that takes part in unlawful behavior. Most juveniles however become delinquents because of the culture and environment that surrounds them. Juveniles who are in an area of violence and crime learn to defy authority and engage in crime because it is the acceptable thing to do.
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 are trigger factors that cause juvenile delinquent characteristics and behavior to develop. These characteristics promotes the thought of these action to be seen as learnt behavior. These factors include, but are not limited to, race, gender, age, social factor, peer influences, truancy, drugs, gangs, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and also mental health. Race can play be big part in the way individuals conduct themselves, especially since society has its own perception and expectations of each race. Throughout the entire criminal justice system, studies have shown that minority groups such as African Americans/Blacks and Hispanics have accounted for a higher percentage of more violent crimes, while Caucasians
Families serve as one of the strongest socializing forces in a person's life. They help teach children to control unacceptable behavior, to delay gratification, and to respect the rights of others. Conversely, families can also teach children aggressive, antisocial, and violent behavior. In adults' lives, family responsibilities may provide an important stabilizing force. Given these possibilities, family life may directly contribute to the development of delinquent and criminal tendencies. Parental conflict and child abuse correlate with delinquency. Though not all children who grow up in conflictive or violent homes become delinquent, however, being exposed to conflict and violence appears to increase the risk of delinquency. At this point, researchers have not pin pointed what factors exactly push some at-risk youth into delinquency. A child with criminal parents faces a greater likelihood of becoming a delinquent than children with law-abiding parents. However, the influence appears not to be directly related to criminality but possibly to poor supervision.
(Review of the Roots of Youth Violence). This is in turn brought about the biosocial perspective of criminality. Instead of viewing criminals as people governed by their biological instincts to be innate criminals, biosocial theorists believe that physical, environmental, and social conditions interact in many different and complex ways to produce human behaviors. This then began the Nature vs Nurture debate.
The social environment of teens holds an enormous influence on how the teens act and behave. Teens are easily influenced by their surroundings and they look to others for guidance. Their behavior results from that of the parent and peer influences. Parents play a particularly influential role in their child’s life and it is up to them to make sure that they are leading their sons or daughters in the right directions. A teen’s peers also play a large role in how the teen behaves when the parents are not around. A teen’s social environment, consisting of family and peers, plays a vital role in their life, therefore becoming the ultimate cause of juvenile delinquency.
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.
Juvenile Delinquency refers to a violent or non- violent crime committed by persons who are (usually) under the age of eighteen. There is a debate about whether or not such a child should be held criminally responsible for his or her action. There are many different inside influences that are believed to affect the way a child acts both negatively and positively.
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.
Moving on to community factors, the environment a juvenile is raised in plays an extremely significant role in influencing the likelihood of delinquent behaviour. The neighbourhood one lives in can allow criminal activities to go unmonitored.