There are many reasons that a person commits a crime. There are multiple schools of thought when it comes to crime and the offender. Are they born predisposed to commit crime or are they taught the behaviors required to break the law? Of these many aspects we often ignore the possibility that genetics and our biological make up may be in part to blame for a person’s decision to violate the law.
When a police detective begins to investigate a crime they must try to determine why the crime was committed, which will in turn help them develop a potential suspect. Often we see that crime is committed by strangers so the connection will be difficult to make. However, once a suspect is identified and arrested the detective must prepare for court and part of that preparation is determining why the suspect chose to commit the crime. Genetics is one reason that people may choose to violate the law. During his research Adrian Raine identified one potential gene that when altered could cause a person to become antisocial and commit crimes (Bartol & Bartol, 2014, Pg. 65). The gene that was identified was the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene, it was discovered that if they removed the gene from a mouse it would become aggressive (Bartol & Bartol, 2014, Pg. 65).
Researchers have also identified at least seven genes that are associated with antisocial behavior (Bartol & Bartol, 2014, Pg. 65). These genes have the ability to alter the make-up of the brain which in turn can affect the decision making processes of the individual (Bartol & Bartol, 2014, Pg. 65). Throughout time we have recognized that some people are just different, their brains do not function on the same level as others and this can lead to antisocial and aggressive beha...
... middle of paper ...
...s can create an environment in which a person may cross the line into a violent or antisocial lifestyle. There are also possibilities that there are biological reasons a person may become a criminal. As in any research you must address and accept all possibilities, and you cannot dismiss one without proof.
References
Anderson, W. R. (2001). Biological predisposition of aggressive & violent behavior. Futurics, 25(1), 72-76. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from http://search.proquest.com/docview/219838943?accountid=159007
Bartol, C., & Bartol, A. (2014). Criminal behavior a psychological approach. (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Criminologist believes violent behavior is biological. (2013, April 30). Retrieved January 19, 2014, from http://www.npr.org/2013/05/01/180096559/criminologist-believes-violent-behavior-is-biological
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...
Crime causation began to be a focus of study in the rapidly developing biological and behavioral sciences during the 19th century. Early biological theories proposed that criminal behavior is rooted in biology and based on inherited traits. Cesare Lombroso (1836-1909), an Italian army prison physician, coined the term “atavism” to describe “the nature of the criminal”...
Despite much controversy surrounding the notion of inherited criminal tendencies, there is much evidence to support such theories. Although Lombroso may have employed his theoretic atavisms in an attempt to provide a biologically deterministic method of reducing or preventing crime, they have ultimately lead to an abandonment of gravitas concerning such a notion. However, as myopic as Lombroso's theories of criminality being a hereditary trait appears (Mannheim, 1965) research has shown shared physical characteristics to be commonplace in explicating the argument of genetic criminal behaviour. Although Lombroso presented...
Dr. Adrian Raine has found that violent criminal offenders have shown aggressive anti-social behavior in childhood. Dr. Raine, a professor of psychology at the University of Southern California, and a top researcher on crime and antisocial behavior, has written more than 100 articles and several books on the topic, including "The Biosocial Basis of Violence." His brain imaging studies on violent individuals shows malfunctioning of the prefrontal cortex, an area involved with the control of behavior.
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.
John Wayne Gacy, Tim Bundy, and Ottis Toole are all infamous serial killers that suffered from a certain disorder. That disorder is called antisocial personality disorder. The biggest question that we have for these men is what triggered these non-empathetic men to commit such heinous crimes, was it mostly biology based or environment? Or do both factors share an equal amount of blame? When it comes to what is the exact cause of antisocial personality disorder, researchers and scientists are unable to come into an agreement. More or less, scientists agree that this personality disorder is caused by a combination of environmental and biological factors. While most scientists are able to agree what environmental conditions serve as precursors for a child to develop antisocial personality disorder characteristics in life, the problem continues to be what internal chemical imbalances are occurring to create this disorder. This ongoing question has been thrown to the public to ponder over for many years. At this time, there are no guarantee of wrong or completely right answers, but only theories to the causation of the disorder. By examining multiple biological theories, along with their fallacies (if any are presented) will we detect what the most probable cause is for this disorder.
The foundation of our legal system rest upon the single philosophy that humans hold their own fate. Even though, we perceive in our daily lives the persistence of causation and effect. Even children understand the simplistic principle that every action will have a reaction. Despite this obvious knowledge, we as a society still implanted the belief that our actions are purely our own. Yet, with the comprehension of force that environmental factors impact our development, we continue to sentence people for crimes committed. Moreover, uncontrollable environmental influences are not the only deterministic factors we ignore in our societal view of crime. One’s biological composition can work against any moral motives that they
...& Snipes, J. (2010). Biological Factors and Criminal Behavior.Vold's theoretical criminology (6th Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
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 than a learned behavior.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
Different schools of thought propose varying theoretical models of criminality. It is agreeable that criminal behaviour is deep rooted in societies and screams for attention. Biological, Social ecological and psychological model theories are key to helping researchers gain deeper comprehension of criminal behaviour and ways to avert them before they become a menace to society. All these theories put forward a multitude of factors on the outlooks on crime. All these theories have valid relevancy to continuous research on criminal behaviour.