According to the article "My Genes Made Me Do It” by Stanton Peele, Ph.D, and Richard DeGrandpre, Ph.D, “The goal of determining what portion of behavior is genetic and environmental will always elude us. Our personalities and destinies do not evolve in this straightforward manner” (Peele). Many factors can influence behavior, and behavior is not simple. It is very complex and can in some cases cause people to behave criminally. There are genetic factors that can influence a person’s behavior as well as environmental factors. All of these factors should be considered when looking at criminal behavior. The factors that affect a persons likelihood to commit a crime include genetic and environmental influences, but there are ways to prevent crime. One factor that influences the likelihood of criminal behavior involves a person’s genetics. Certain inherited behaviors can lead people to be more likely to have criminal behaviors. Stated in the article "The Criminal Mind,” Arian Raine explains, “More than 100 studies of twins and adopted children have confirmed that about half of the variance in aggressive and antisocial behavior can be attributed to genetics.” (Raine). Aggressive and antisocial behaviors are found in many criminals. Research proves that these behaviors can be due to genetics, and this makes these behaviors a genetic influence to criminal behavior. Additionally, anybody can be a criminal, but gender plays a role in their chances as well. In the article “Born
Factors that may affect criminal behaviour may include a persons upbringing from parents and educational upbringing which are the main types of factors, Although,there are some times when people are conditioned to believe that the crime is right and not against the law or different politcal beliefs may insight violence and/or rebellion.
Checking the genetics of a person can tell much about the person and who they are. Does where a person lives and the environment they are in constantly influence them to commit crime? Is it the genetic makeup of the person that makes a more probable chance for them to commit a crime? “Drilling into the skull of a young man he began to funnel a stream of sulfuric acid into the head of his unconscious victim to create a zombie to fulfill all of his fantasies. Dead within a day, he mummified the head of his victim placing it in the freezer beside the skulls of those who came before. Dismembering the remnants of the body he placed skin, blood, and bone into a fifty-gallon vat of acid dissolving what was left of the young man”(Center Crisis Management). Jeffrey Dahmer one of the most notorious serial killer did not murder for financial gain, rage, or vengeance, he murdered to feed a desire. Could Dahmer’s DNA be the reason for his impulses to kill? Many theories criticize the biological perspective, but the studies of those who commit murder suggest the biological theory could be accurate.
The biological theories are an essential to criminal justice professionals to explain why the genetic characteristics of the human being's body chemicals and evolutionary aggressive criminal conduct have been proposed as explanations for crime; however, to distinguish criminals from non-criminals without adding the value judgment. (Bohm & Vogel, 2011) “Biological theories can be understood as a broad, science-based, anthropological approach to understanding criminality” (Swan, 2017, para. 4). It is important to understand the body type based on the functions of the brain. Therefore, there are several different methodologies to describe the physical differences between criminals and non-criminals such as physiognomy, phrenology, criminal anthropology, the study of the body types, heredity, and scientific technologies that examine the brain function and structure to give the criminal justice profession another look into an individual before a biased take.
Criminals are born not made is the discussion of this essay, it will explore the theories that attempt to explain criminal behavior. 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. There are various theories within the biological explanation as to why individuals commit criminal behavior, these include: genetic theory, hereditary theory,.
Theories of crime causation get to the fundamental characteristics of human nature. Theories of crime causation can be separated into trait theories and choice theories. Both types of theories make valid points about the causes of crime, yet they are have different implications for preventing the causes of crime. Thesis: Trait theories and choice theories both assume that humans are self-interested, but their conceptions of self-interest limit the applicability of each to certain types of crime. Trait theories appear more suited for explaining the causes of violent crime, whereas choice theories are more appropriate to property crimes or economic crimes.
The objective of this study is to examine whether it is nature or nurture who plays the most vital role in a human’s behavior, specifically an individual’s criminal behavior. Criminal behavior is defined as an act or failure to act in a way that violates public law. Some believe that criminal behavior can be identified as early as conception, meaning that criminal behavior is because of your genes. While others believe that one’s upbringing and social learning environment directly contributes to the individual’s criminal behavior. This paper will provide the history on the ongoing debate of nature vs. nurture and answer the question of whether it is
Adoption studies have also been conducted to test for the criminal behaviours of the adopted-away children, if their biological parents had also been involved with criminal activity. In Iowa, the first adoption study was conducted that looked at the genetics of criminal behaviour. The researchers found that as compared to the control group, the adopted individuals, which were born to incarcerated female offenders, had a higher rate of criminal convictions as adults. Another study in Sweden also showed that if a biological background existed for criminality, then there was an increased risk of criminal behaviours in the adopted children. These evidences support the existence of a heritable component to antisocial or criminal behavior (Tehrani & Mednick, 2000).
There has always been a fascination with trying to determine what causes an individual to become a criminal? Of course a large part of that fascination has to do with the want to reduce crime, and to determine if there is a way to detect and prevent individuals from committing crime. Determining what causes criminality is still not perfectly clear and likewise, there is still debate as to whether crime is caused biologically, environmentally, or socially. Furthermore, the debate is directly correlated to the notion of 'nurture vs nature'. Over time many researchers have presented various theories pertaining to what causes criminal behavior. There are many theories that either support or oppose the concept of crime being biological rather
What determines criminal behavior? Are they born to be a natural born killer, is it in their genes, or is it a learned behavior? There are multiple factors resulting in criminal behavior, from genes to environmental factors. Although it is said and believed that criminal behavior is biologically determined there are even more learned or environmental factors that play a role in criminal behavior.
When looking at criminal activity and the direct connection to the criminal behavior we see that there have been many research trials that have taken place over the history of humankind (Mishra & Lalumiere, 2008). Two of these research areas that have been developed to attempt to understand the causes of criminal behavior are known as biological and psychological perspectives of crime causation. These two sectors have their principles that are held in their theories as a standard scientific understanding of the basics that each evaluation of criminal behavior is built on (Dretske, 2004).
No one can be certain whether nature or nurture is the cause for criminal behavior. However, research has stated that it is more often an interaction between genes and the environment that predicts criminal behavior (Jones, 2005). Through a biological perspective, it is determined that criminal behavior is due to genetics and/or neurological conducts. It concludes that criminals are born due to their criminal traits being passed down through genetic or chromosomal mutation. Another explanation of criminal behavior within the biological perspective are the neurochemicals within our brains and body. There many regulated chemicals in the brain that determines thought process, perception and action. Like the arguments for genetic and chromosomal mutation, any abnormal anomalies or chemical imbalance can heavily impact behavior (Schram, 2018). This goes for any damages to some parts of the brain that controls emotions, reason and logic. Problems with the biological perspective are the following: 1. It provide little explanations for a small of minority of offenders with specific conditions (Levitt, 2013). 2. Disregard the effect of environmental influences and life experiences that also impact behavior. 3. Since criminality is based on biology, it is unchangeable, therefore, no one is to be blamed for their actions. Lastly, 4. Famous studies on biological factors of criminality (ex: the twin, family and adoption studies) maintained an intertwined relationship with social
Initially, the main belief was that criminal behavior was based on rational choice or thought, where criminals were believed to be intelligent beings and weighed the pros and cons before deciding to commit a crime; classicists Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham introduced this view. Essentially, these criminals would compare the risks of committing the crime, such as getting caught, jail or prison time, being disowned by family and friends, and so forth; and the rewards, such as money and new possessions. After making comparisons, the person would make a decision based on whether the risk was greater than the reward. This is like what is presented in an article on Regis University Criminology Program’s website, which states that a criminal “operates based on free will and rational thought when choosing what and what not to do. But that simplistic view has given way to far more complicated theories” (“Biological Theories Primer”). Nowadays, biological theories make attempts in explaining criminal behavior in terms of factors that are primarily outside of the control of the individual.
One researcher studied a theory relating to sociopaths and their antisocial behavior. This specific study proposed a theory that a primary sociopath is lacking in moral development and does not feel socially responsible for their actions. This type of sociopath is a product of the individual's personality, physiotype, and genotype, which supports the theory that a person’s genotype is the significant factor in the development of criminality. There is a secondary sociopath that develops in response to his or her environment because of how and where they were raised. Living in an urban residence, having a low socioeconomic status, or poor social skills can lead an individual to being unsuccessful in reaching their needs in a socially desirable way, which can turn into antisocial or criminal behavior. This supports the theory that the environment is the significant factor in the development of criminality. With these studies, it shows that both the genetic make-up of an individual as well as the environment play an important role with what kind of person they are going to be as an adult.
For the most part, biological theories of crime and deviance have had an unsuccessful and undistinguished career among sociologists. The Italian physician Cesare Lombroso suggested that someone who is born criminal possesses atavism or primitive evolutionary characteristics that produced violent, savage, and apelike tendencies in humans (Goode, p. 27). In addition, biological theories of deviance see crime and deviant behavior as a form of illness due to pathological factors to certain individuals. The biological theory is another example of Charles Whitman actions. Smart, strong, and talented, Charles Whitman seemed like a perfect all-American boy stereotype.
20). This illustrates that not only is persons' genetics contributing to criminal behaviour 'but' also the environment in which the they are socialised can initiate deviancy.