The Theories Believe Biological Or Genetic Risk Factors

Their purpose was to measure the children’s individual strains both at home and school by asking them a series of “yes or no” questions. Interviews also included surveys from the children’s main teacher and primary guardian, usually the mother, and the questions tended to be more comprehensive. Results that were similar between the mother and teacher were then measured and compared. They found that teacher’s responses to the survey tended to be less biased than a juveniles primary guardian. This allowed them to accurately compare the children’s level of constraint and personality traits from all major influencing environments. As a result, Agnew et al. (2002) found that juveniles who are high in negative emotionality and show low constraint tend to experience more strain and therefore are more likely to act as a delinquent or participate in criminal behavior. This correlation not only makes sense but also is important because it provides empirical researchers with an explanation as to why some juvenile’s are more likely to react to strain with delinquency and crime (Agnew et al., 2002). Agnew et al. (2002) choose to focus on the traits of negative emotionality and constraint for a couple of reasons. The first reason being “it allows us to draw on the extensive psychological research on the nature and origin of these traits. Second, the impact of low self-control on crime is interpreted largely in terms of control theory” (Agnew et al., 2002,

It was not a topic that was brought up earlier, because there was tainted history of using biology to figure logistics of criminal behavior. Instead, criminologists look at social and environmental factors such as poverty rates, drug/weapon accessibility, and socialization. Over 100 studies have shown genes play a role in crime. Kevin Beaver, an associate professor at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice states approximately 50 percent of a human’s aggressive behavior is comprised of the thousands of expressed genes affected by the environment (Cohen). The other half of a human’s aggressive behavior is usually environmental or social factors such as, neighborhood, wealth, and education. It is important to also know the other factors that “make” someone a criminal because it will also help researcher see what else contributes to criminal activity (Eysenck).

Modern biology is focused more on understanding behavior, like violence and crime, through research on indicators and influences. Rather than attempting to determine a single root cause, researchers are discovering markers of predisposition and identifying factors of risk. In a recent interview about his new book, The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime, criminologist and professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Adrian Raine asserts that there is a “biology of violence” that should not be ignored; “Just as there’s a biological basis for schizophrenia and anxiety disorders and depression… there’s a biological basis also to recidivistic violent offending” (Gross, 2013).

In today’s society, violence occurs every minute somewhere in some shape or form. It continues to be a plague that causes humans humility, pain, and death. Both the scientific and criminal justice fields have been stumped for years by the question of “where does the influence of violence come from?” Nature versus nurture has always been one of the most prevalent arguments relating to this topic. The nature argument is based on the belief that an individual’s biology/DNA contributes to their behavior, where the nurture argument believes that the environment one is exposed to is what actually influences their behavior. According to Hickey, biological positivism was the method of applying the scientific method to the task of determining who was a criminal (48).

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.

The general strain theory is an established theory that provides a basic understanding relating to different elements leading to specific criminal behaviors. The theory has been of importance in trying to map criminal patterns among individuals involved in criminal behavior, thereby creating a platform for their rehabilitation. The general strain theory has had a close connection to juvenile delinquency, as it creates a platform where psychologists can define some of the key factors prompting teenagers and youths to engage in criminal behaviors. According to Zhang (2008), teenagers and youths tend to become highly vulnerable to lack of emotional control attributed to an aspect of negative emotions, which do not include anger, thereby creating a platform for them to engage in behaviors that would be characterized as criminal. The main research problem of this report is to create a connection between the general strain theory and juvenile delinquency.

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

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

The Nature-Nurture debate has been scrutinised by psychologists for over a hundred years and, more recently, by biologists in the field of cognitive science. It inquires as to the influence of both ‘nature’; the hereditary present factors of a person determined by biological genetics; ‘Nurture’ is based on circumstance, the belief that the person we are is purely influenced by our environment, upbringing and circumstances that we encounter. This essay will cover both sides of the Nature vs Nurture debate while relating to behaviourism and criminal behaviour. ‘Criminal behaviour’ is a wide topic and encompasses many different types of behaviour and motivations/reasons for such; this essay will focus on criminal acts committed by those who suffer from a diagnosed mental health disorder, and consider the Nature-Nurture debate within this context.

The nature versus nurture debate is an ongoing debate among social scientists relating to whether ones personality/personal characteristics are the result of his/her inherited genetic traits or the result of environmental factors such as upbringing, social status, financial stability, and more. One of the topics that are discussed among psychologists is the study of violent behavior among people as a whole, and in particular, individuals. Social scientists try to explain why people commit acts of violence through explanation of either side of the nature or nurture schools of thought. However, the overwhelming amount of research done into the relation of violent behavior and the nature versus nurture debate indicated that nurture is the primary explanation to explaining violent behavior because violent traits are learned from adults, someone’s social upbringing is a major factor to why some people are more violent than others, and finally influences from news media, movies, and video games enhance the chance for someone to exhibit violent behavior. In conclusion, violent behavior is a complex issue without a clear explanation that is overwhelmingly supported by the nurture side of the debate.

When it comes to juvenile delinquency an adolescent personality is usually impacted from different factors such as early child hood experiences of witnessing a crime, seeing a violent act, being the victim of a crime, or being around others or family who engaged in criminal activity, these factors can either create an adolescent with a positive or negative attitude, or an anti-social behavior which could create a path for a delinquent behavior (Wilson, p. 34). A study has shown that family interactions accounts for about 40 percent of the cause of an adolescent with an anti-social behavior, the study also shown that aggressiveness which is a common trait of adolescent who engage in delinquent acts is usually created from peer influences (Wilson, p. 34).

These theories do not see crime as a rational behavior, but instead that it is from abnormalities/ criminal traits. The reason why is that this deterrent of punishment will be ineffective to reducing recidivism (Howell Chapter 3 handout, 2015). Modern biosocial theories is also determinism, but soft. Where the nature has an strong influence on behavior via nurture (Howell chapter 3 handout, 2015). 7.)

Criminal behavior is defined as an act that violates the public law established by the government. Individuals exhibiting criminal behavior may be subjected to negative consequences such as imprisonment or death penalty. Criminal behavior is normally associated with deviance, which is the violations of norms (Henslin, 2017). The factors which influences the criminal behavior is often debated by researchers, whether they are acquired or inborn. Specifically, scientists who study sociobiology believe that genetic predispositions lead people to engage in deviant or criminal acts (Henslin, 2017). As the study of genetics

Criminals are born not made is the discussion of this essay, it will explore the theories that attempt to explain criminal behaviour. 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.

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