More handpicked essays just for you.
Biological and psychological theories both influence crime
Factors that lead to committing crime
Theory of crime causation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
However, in recent findings, nurture has arisen and has begun the controversy of nature vs. nurture. Nurture focuses solely on an idea, or possibility. The way to prove this idea is through the background of criminal offenders. However, it will closely relate to the fact that majority of criminals have a personality disorder. The first idea of nurture is the sociological side. Criminology (2016) sees this as what was learned in the early life, the contact one has had with criminals, the failure to form strong emotional bonds, and juvenile delinquency. It is family environment that will greatly affect the likelihood of criminal behavior forming. Some of the risks that are included in risk factors for criminal behavior are poverty, education, …show more content…
Through the American Psychological Association (2004), it is shown that the continuation of this controversy will result in psychologists not progression in the reasoning behind why one acts upon their criminal behavior. Having a bias towards either nature or nurture will make it much more difficult to find the truth behind why a crime was committed. As stated, a stressor is usually involved when a crime is committed. There are many people who have a chemical imbalance but if they grew up in a home where there was no violence or abuse then they’re more likely to know the difference between right and wrong. It is important to resolve this controversy between whether nature or nurture was involved in the reason for a crime, because it is a combination of factors that will cause a crime to be committed. If the controversy is resolved it will make the matter on hand, figuring out what the stressor was, easier. It will no longer be figuring out whether there is a hormonal imbalance or if the suspect was from an abusive family the only thing that matters is how to stop him. However, if the controversy continues, more death and trauma will follow. Death Nature and nurture are intertwined and it is a psychologist’s job to understand this and attempt to get ahead of a criminal before more death
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.
This paper looks at the different theories of criminal behavior that explain why people commit crimes. It goes deeper to analyze the specific theories in a bid to determine why a person may commit a certain crime and another person under the same circumstances may not. The paper focuses on key factors that motivate unruly behavior among people and why such factors are present in some people and not in others. In doing so, the paper leans more on children in order to determine how delinquency behavior is progressively imparted on them as they undergo developmental trajectory.
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.
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...
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.
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.
The major premise of this is that the development of the unconscious personality early in childhood influences behavior for the rest of a person’s life. Criminals have weak egos and damaged personalities. The main focus of this is mental illness. In regards to social learning theory, one’s criminal behavior is learned through human interactions. Learning theories help explain the role that peers, family, and education play in shaping criminal and conventional behaviors. If crime were a matter of personal traits alone, these elements of socialization would not play such an important a part in determining human behaviors. Mental illness is part of the major crime causation for trait theory. According to some estimates, as much as 50% of the U.S. prison population suffers from some form of mental
Nurture debate, which argues whether a person is predisposed due to their DNA makeup, or are a blank slate and are affected by the life experiences and environment that creates who they will be and adapt as seen fit. Scientists have determined that the presence of biological abnormalities will increase the likelihood of an individual doing criminal acts, but it will not force them to be one (it does not make them a criminal for sure), which is what individuals against biological theories tend to argue. Another argument is that biological factors will increase the possible criminal behaviors when other social/mental factors are also present, which is what the other factions of theories tend to
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.