Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Case study of aggression in children
Case study of aggression in children
Conflict between free will and determinism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Case study of aggression in children
Determinism argues that human behaviour is accounted for by external or internal forces that is beyond our control, therefore suggests that behaviour is predetermined and humans cannot be held responsible. Free will, however, argues that humans are free to live in whatever way we choose. Free will suggests that humans are free from independent influences, and our actions and behaviours are a result of our choices, therefore making it our responsibility. (Alexander & Staub, 1956). Criminals are not responsible for their actions as criminal behaviour is predetermined by independent forces such as genetic vulnerability and is not a result of free will.
The psychodynamic approach argues that mental processes are affected by the force of the unconscious
…show more content…
Genetic vulnerability to criminal behaviour will make an individual much likely to act in anti-social ways. (Clive Hollin, 1989). Twin studies have been conducted into criminal behaviour and genetics (Clive Hollin, 1989), and it found a 75% concordance rate between MZ twins and only 24% concordance rate within DZ twins. This suggests that genetics does play an important part in the development of criminal behaviour, however, a much more updated study has shown that there if a significant decrease in the concordance rate. (Clive Hollin, 1989) Furthermore, it should be noted that many MZ twins share the same environment and may display similar social responses as a result, such as criminal and anti-social behaviours. MZ twins tend to have the same peer groups and share the same experiences compared to DZ twins, which may explain the concordance rate more than the role of genetics. (Clive, Hollin 1989). It may be prudent to suggest that an interaction of both genetics and the environment may be responsible for behaviour. Furthermore, there are also indications that males are more aggressively charged than females, thus more likely to perform criminal acts. The argument suggests that hormone levels may influence behaviour indirectly within early adolescent development (Denno, 1988). An association has been found between testosterone levels and the history of …show more content…
It suggests that criminal behaviour develops due to what children observe at home during early childhood and they then demonstrate these behaviours when they are older. One study illustrated the effects of modelling and how it can influence anti-social behaviours in children. Bandura (1965), showed a video clip to children of an adult attacking a bobo doll violently, for example kicking and punching. The results showed that children who observed this were more aggressive towards the bobo doll than the control group. This suggests that behaviour is a result of modelling and that children are easily influenced and will imitate what they observed. Therefore, arguing that criminal behaviour is a result of behaviour we learned during early childhood. (Christi Bergin & David Bergin,
In life we are constantly questioning why people act the way they do. A determinist would say that freedom of choice couldn’t always be possible because our actions are determined by things that are way beyond our control. This view is known as the most extreme form of determinism; hard determinism. A hard determinist would believe there is no free will it’s an illusion everything is determined. Everything happens because of physical laws, which govern the universe. Whether or not we do well in life is far beyond our control. We may seem to have a choice but in reality we don’t. We shouldn’t blame people or praise people it wasn’t their choice. We are helpless and blind from start to finish. We don’t have any moral responsibilities. Some causes that are put forth by determinist are human nature; which means people are born with basic instincts that influence how they act. Another is environmental influence, which simply means people are shaped by their environment conditioned by their experience to be the kind of people they are. Also, social dynamics, which mean’s social creatures that are influenced by social force around them and psychological forces, which is people, are governed by psychological forces.
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.
However, I have taken a more compatibilist approach towards the argument of free will, determinism, and moral responsibility. I think that determinism lays the foundation for an individual to make a decision by exposing a multitude of possibilities. But, it takes free will to make the decision which in turn makes us partially responsible for our actions since we had various options at hand. I suspect that the concept that free will and determinism can coexist and oftentimes work hand in hand. Since we are predisposed to a particular body, with different DNA, and a unique mindset, I can agree that we are predetermined to think and act a certain way because of genetics and how we were raised. However, I also believe that this is not the only force at hand whenever people make decisions. As we grow and experience the world, we are faced with situations that have us question and rearrange our perspectives and the way we think. This is where determinism comes into play. For example, a child who was taught to eat meat during their early life learns about how the meat industry functions in an Environmental Science class in high school. As a result, they decided to be a vegetarian. This causal event serves as an influence that instilled a new idea into the student. However, it takes free will to ultimately make the decision to convert because it goes against what was determined for the individual. It was their autonomous choice to convert since there were two options at hand: to change their eating habits or to remain the
High crime rates are an ongoing issue through the United States, however the motivation and the cause of crime has yet to be entirely identified. Ronald Akers would say that criminality is a behavior that is learned based on what an individual sees and observes others doing. When an individual commits a crime, he or she is acting on impulse based on actions that they have seen others engage in. Initially during childhood, individuals learn actions and behavior by watching and listening to others, and out of impulse they mimic the behavior that is observed. Theorist Ronald Akers extended Sutherland’s differential association theory with a modern viewpoint known as the social learning theory. The social learning theory states that individuals commit crime through their association with or exposure to others. According to Akers, people learn how to be offenders based on their observations around them and their association with peers. Theorist Akers states that for one, “people can become involved in crime through imitation—that is by modeling criminal conduct. Second, and most significant, Akers contended that definition and imitation are most instrumental in determining initial forays into crime” (Lilly, Cullen, and Ball 2011:57). Although Akers’ theory has been linked to juvenile delinquency in the past, it has also been tested as a possible cause of crime overall. Individuals learn from observation that criminal behavior is justifiable in certain circumstances. In connection with juvenile delinquency and crime, peers and intimate groups have the most effect on individuals when associated with criminal behavior. One is more likely to mimic the behavior of someone who they have close ties with, whether the behavior is justifiable or...
As some believe that we humans have free will, they believe that we have the freedom of choice and the freedom of action. But, if all of our actions have a reason behind them, or if there is a causal explanation behind each of our choices, it is difficult to say that we actually have the freedom of will. For this reason, determinism challenges free will, as the determinist believes that all of our decisions are governed by some form of natural law, and that all of our behaviors are explainable by this law.
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.
Imagine starting your day and not having a clue of what to do, but you begin to list the different options and routes you can take to eventually get from point A to point B. In choosing from that list, there coins the term “free will”. Free will is our ability to make decisions not caused by external factors or any other impediments that can stop us to do so. Being part of the human species, we would like to believe that we have “freedom from causation” because it is part of our human nature to believe that we are independent entities and our thoughts are produced from inside of us, on our own. At the other end of the spectrum, there is determinism. Determinism explains that all of our actions are already determined by certain external causes
6. Joseph, Jay. “Chapter 8: Is Crime in the Genes? A Critical Review of Twin and Adoption Studies of Criminal and Antisocial Behavior.” The Gene Illusion: Genetic Research in Psychiatry and Psychology under the Microscope, Algora Pub., 2004, pp. 278–279.
If human nature and decisions are based on a majority of free will than what would be the point of living out an everyday life if the script and final scene are determined by who your parents are and the genes you receive from them. Furthermore, it would likely cause more division within our own race than ethnicity, sex, gender, or culture will. I would be more inclined to believe in the circumstance of social environment to be a factor of criminal behavior. There are ultimately two kinds of purposeful crimes, crimes one feels they have to commit in order to avoid or attain a particular outcome and crimes that one wants to commit out of their own volition. Those who commit crimes because they feel they have to be of a majority pertain to environmental or personal circumstances. On the minority of purposeful crimes are they reason to lack of free will from a genetic stand point.
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...
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.
Freedom, or the concept of free will seems to be an elusive theory, yet many of us believe in it implicitly. On the opposite end of the spectrum of philosophical theories regarding freedom is determinism, which poses a direct threat to human free will. If outside forces of which I have no control over influence everything I do throughout my life, I cannot say I am a free agent and the author of my own actions. Since I have neither the power to change the laws of nature, nor to change the past, I am unable to attribute freedom of choice to myself. However, understanding the meaning of free will is necessary in order to decide whether or not it exists (Orloff, 2002).
There are more contemporary biological theories that have since developed. However, most are still nearly impossible to prove true; for example, the genetic theory of crime in fraternal and identical twins. This study is supposed to provide evidence that those who are born with the same genetically heritable trait are more prone to crime than fraternal twins or siblings because of the ...
JOSEPH, J (2001), Is crime in the genes: A Critical review of Twins and Adoption Studies of Criminality and Antisocial Behaviour.
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...