My research question is the following: What causes an individual to engage in criminal behavior? Is it nature or nurture? Are people born with a predisposition towards criminality or is this a learned behavior? Some people believe that criminal behavior is based upon and individual upbringing and life experience (nurture), others believe that this behavior is part of a person’s genetic makeup (nature). Scientists have been debating about nature v. nurture for decades. Nurture proponents propose that environmental factors are a key component in the development of criminal behavior. Naturalist on the other hand proposes that criminal behavior can be inherited like a person’s height or eye color from their parents or ancestors. …show more content…
However, rejecting our null hypothesis on the other hand can support our reasoning, which can be strengthened from replicated and new research. Within the analysis we test the null hypothesis, to help us suggest whether our hypothesis could be a possible reason for the results we collected. The more we replicate the research and reject the null in testing – the more and more possible our initial hypothesis is suggested to be plausible.[1] Why is a null hypothesis required in research? How is the null hypothesis used when drawing conclusions from the collected data? A null hypothesis is a hypothesis that can be proven to be wrong. In other words it can be proven to be wrong by observation that supports the alternative hypothesis. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative hypothesis. What is the relationship of your hypothesis to the identified problem? Theory and research have a complex interrelationship. Theories generate hypotheses that can be proven or disproved by research, the results of which may cause the theory to be strengthened. The results of research may also call a theory into question, causing it to be rejected or …show more content…
In science, a theory is the most reliable form of knowledge. It is expressed in a logical form and based on substantial evidence. Examples of scientific theory include the heliocentric theory that the Earth rotates around the sun, the cell theory that living things are composed of cells and the theory of plate tectonics that explains the movement of solid plates comprising the surface of the Earth. Research is creative work used to increase the knowledge available to humankind. Both theory and research are part of the scientific method, a process by which knowledge is acquired, corrected and integrated into the totality of verifiable knowledge. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis, which is a testable prediction made before carrying out research. A hypothesis is an idea that has yet to be tested, whereas a theory has already been tested, supported and generally accepted. A hypothesis is focused on a specific set of circumstances, while a theory is a more general explanation or observation. [2] How is your hypothesis feasible?- A testable hypothesis is one which you can formulate an experiment around. In simpler terms, a testable hypothesis is one you can test to see if it is true or not. In simpler terms, a testable hypothesis is one you can test to see if it is true or
Any hypothesis, Gould says, begins with the collection of facts. In this early stage of a theory development bad science leads nowhere, since it contains either little or contradicting evidence. On the other hand, Gould suggests, testable proposals are accepted temporarily, furthermore, new collected facts confirm a hypothesis. That is how good science works. It is self-correcting and self-developing with the flow of time: new information improves a good theory and makes it more precise. Finally, good hypotheses create logical relations to other subjects and contribute to their expansion.
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.
1. Hypothesis - A hypothesis is defined by the Criminal Justice Today textbook as "An explanation that accounts for a set of facts and that can be tested by further investigation. Also, something that is taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation" (Schmalleger 73). It is, essentially, a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. In terms of law and criminal justice, The Law Dictionary website defines the term as "A supposition, assumption, or theory; a theory set up by the prosecution, on a criminal trial, or by the defense, as an explanation of the facts in evidence, and a ground for inferring guilt or innocence, as the case may be, or asindicating
There are many definitions to theory. According to Akers (2009) “theories are tentative answers to the commonly asked questions about events and behavior” (Akers, (2009, p. 1). Theory is a set of interconnect statements that explain how two or more things are related in two casual fashions, based upon a confirmed hypotheses and established multiple times by disconnected groups of researchers.
48): A research hypothesis is a researcher’s prediction of the expected results of a study. Research hypotheses can be directional, in which the researcher states the exact “nature of the expected difference or relationship” between factors, or nondirectional, in which the researcher states that there will be some type of relationship between factors, but is not yet sure what that relationship will be. (McMillan, 2012, p. 48)
Criminal behavior can mostly be explained by the Biosocial Branch of Trait Theory. Individual traits by themselves cannot determine criminality. Outside factors such as the environment along with certain personality traits is what causes criminal behavior.
”Theories tell how and why things work; how and why one variable is related to another. Research findings that are theory based can be place in a framework that advances science further than findings that are unconnected to formal theory.” (O'Connell, 2009, p. 33).
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.
Finding strong evidence surrounding this topic could be significant to reducing crime rates and addressing the public health issue. What I have learn from research-based evidence and analyzing social and cultural theories, is that criminal behavior is multifaceted and is influenced by a range of determinants in which surrounds the nature versus nurture debate. I believe that nature and nurture both play significant roles to the making of a criminal.
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.
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.
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.
Theory is explained as a set of concepts, definitions, relationships, and assumptions that amplify a systematic view of a phenomenon. Theory is made up of one or more specific and concrete
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.
Though inconclusive, there are numerous other socio-biological factors that present individual risks to criminality. These include gang related peer influence, low IQ levels and hormones; especially cortisol and testosterone.