In the eternal exploration into understanding the complex criminal mind, a multitude of theories, in the study of criminology, have flourished. Among these theories is the nature vs nurture debate, which suggest that criminal behavior is either genetically inherited or a consequence of environmental influence. These two views on criminal causation differ in many ways but they are not without their similarities.
Through the earnest process of research in biological criminology, some theorists advocate that criminality is a predisposed defect. In the early study of this field, it was thought that physical appearance determined who would engage in criminal activity, consequently, this primitive thinking lead the use of eugenics, sterilizing
…show more content…
If Cory has decided to commit a crime there are many factors he will need to consider including what type of crime he is going to commit. He will also need to analyze his criminal skills, for example, if Cory has learned the art of pickpocketing, he could use this artistry to acquire someone else’s property and disappear before they even notice.
Theft does not always necessarily require a particular set of skills he can simply “snatch” a person’s belongings, but he will need to think about who, where, and when. In this case he would want to choose a target whose assets are easily accessible, usually a woman 's purse and then examine the way in which she is carrying it, furthermore, he should also access the individual 's appearance and decide whether or not the risk will be worth it. The location will be just as important as the victim; a densely populated area could help or hinder his crime. The time of day will contribute to his success or failure as well. stealing in broad daylight takes confidence, but there are more targets to choose from, whereas some thieves might feel more comfortable under the cloak of darkness and decide upon a victim of
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.
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.
The case of whether serial killers are born with the lust to kill or if they are truly victims of their environment has been a hot debated question by both psychologists and the FBI today. A serial killer is traditionally defined as one that kills 3 or more people at different times with “cooling off” periods in between kills. Both psychological abuse as a child and psychological disorders are to blame for the making of a killer. The nature vs. nurture debate is best applied to the mysterious behaviors and cases of serial killers and their upbringing and environment. Nature is the genetic and biological connections a person has, personality traits, and how genetic make-up all relates to a killer. Nurture is examining the upbringing and environment that a person is around that affects what a person becomes. In some cases however, the effects of only upbringing or only biological problems were the reasons certain serial killers committed crimes. Although there is no definitive answer to what plays the bigger role: nature or nurture, they both are contributing factors that make a serial killer. These deviants of society are afflicted with problems in either their upbringing or have psychological disorders, and are able to blend into our everyday lives with no apparent differences, yet they wreck havoc through their unremorseful killings.
A continuous debate arises confirming that the genetic makeup of individuals may be linked to criminal acts. For example, with regards to Nature being a cause of Juvenile Delinquency, this suggests that the juvenile was born with the trait, and they are innate. "In Iowa, the first adoption study was conducted that looked at the genetics of criminal behavior. The researchers found that as compared to the control group, the adopted individuals, which were born to incarcerated female offenders, had a ...
In conclusion, offenders are who they are now by nurture. Although some factors of criminals with biological influences make them more likely to commit crime. However, it can clearly be seen that family and media plays a big role in influencing criminal behaviour in this era where it was proven that when violent acts are frequently observed or thought, it will increase the risk factor on normal people and even more on people with aggressive genes to commit a crime. Therefore, it can be clearly seen that the nurture of the offender outweighs their nature to commit deviant crimes.
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.
...& Snipes, J. (2010). Biological Factors and Criminal Behavior.Vold's theoretical criminology (6th Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Criminals have been committing crimes for centuries, and they are always fooling the police detectives and federal agencies sometimes. If the justice departments would actually look at the persons thought processes and reasoning before a crime is committed, the justice departments will be able to answer the reason for the crime. The different departments could possibly figure out why the criminal did what they did in the first. For instance, they should use a couple of criminology theories to help them with certain cases that are more difficult than the rest. The theories that the justice departments should use in their systems are the rational choice and biological theories of criminology.
In this article the two authors research the connection between genetic factors and criminal behavior. They look at the causes that make someone act in a criminal way. There are several factors looked at in connection to the cause such as social factors and environmental variables. The social factors being the more examined of the two. They hypothesized that other factors in performance or alone with environmental variables would lead to better understanding of why some people become criminal. The genetic factor of influence due to mental disorders was posed to have a slight role in affecting people to show criminal behavior. Another cause looked at was the combination of genetic and environmental factors, with a possible result of having a higher risk for criminal 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.
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.
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. There are various theories within the biological explanation as to why individuals commit criminal behaviour, these include: genetic theory, hereditary theory, psychosis and brain injury theory. In the next few paragraphs examples of each will be shown. The first theory to be explored is the hereditary theory, which stems from Cesare Lombroso (1876) father of criminology, (Feldman, 1993) whose studies were carried out by morphology.
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...
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