Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
DNA techniques used for criminal investigation
Child abuse
DNA profiling in criminal justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The human personality is shaped in three ways. The first being DNA. This is what is engrained in one’s mind from the moment they are born through a combination of brain structure and genetics, also known as one’s human nature. The second is how one is raised and the environment one grows up in. Whether physical and emotional needs are being met greatly affects the personality of a person. This is known as how one is nurtured. Finally, external factors can affect one’s personality like head injuries, brain tumors or illnesses. This knowledge can be applied by the police force to determine who is at a higher risk to commit crimes and who is likely to commit crimes again after finishing sentencing. Although viewed as controversial, with this knowledge, the justice system can attempt to track people that are predisposed to committing crimes and create resources so that …show more content…
In the case of Donta Page, at nine months old, Page was thrown out of a car window, suffering severe emotional trauma as well as significant brain trauma. Page continued to endure abuse from his family resulting in multiple head injuries as a child (Raine, 2013). An extreme example of external factors affecting criminal behavior is the case of a father named Michael, who was sentenced for the custody of child pornogrophy but right before his sentencing he had his brain scanned because of headaches and they found a tumor in the part of the brain responsible for control over emotions. Once the tumor was removed, Michael completed a therapy program and his sentence was dropped. This circumstance was unusual but it shows the lack of control humans have in the world around them that can influence them in strange ways. One study showed that, “50% to 60% of violent repeat offenders suffer from some form of brain impairment. And 10% to 20% may have suffered their brain damage from a severe blow to the head...” (Raine,
In my opinion, the author defends a good but also complex perspective. '' The criminal activity itself should be taken as evidence of brain abnormality'', says Eagleman, however, what about the percentage of criminals that are not carriers of the genes that contribute to performing violent crimes? Are they going to be sent to rehabilitation too and exonerated from incarceration even when there is proof of no brain
This topic is crucial when considering the decision to penalize a criminal for a felony. Scientifically speaking, there is a difference between the brains of individuals, causing some people to be more aggressive than others. As Gazzaniga (2005) states in his book, "Whether through neurochemical imbalances or lesions, brain function can become distorted, perhaps explaining certain violent or criminal behavior" (p.89). If all people with such neurochemical imbalances displayed similar types of behavior, the conclusion would be obvious. However, not all people who have lesions or schizophrenia are violent. (Gazzaniga, 2005, p.95) An inconsistency in behavioral outcomes requires an alternate explanation of the concept of free will. Some philosophers criticize neuroscientists, arguing that, according to the article Neuroscience vs. Philosophy, "researchers have not quite grasped the concept that they say they are debunking" (Neuroscience vs. Philosophy: Taking an Aim at free will, 2011). In order to fully understand the concept of free will, it must be understood from synthesizing lessons from human experiences. Aristotle spoke of an internal moral compass that all humans possess; one that guides the concept of what is good (Eshleman, 2014, p.3). It becomes a necessity to compile the scientific perspective of a moral dilemma with the philosophical perspective in order to draw a reasonable
People are uniquely different and because of this reason, they do have different behaviors. Crime is one kind of behavior that an individual can engage in. They are punishable by the law and may be prosecuted by the state (Helfgott, 2008). There are different theories existing that try to explain the actions of criminals. They deeply explain what causes an individual to commit a criminal activity. This paper discusses some examples of the biological theories, social theories and psychological theories of crime.
Trait theory views criminality as a product of abnormal biological or psychological traits. It is based on a mix between biological factors and environmental factors. Certain traits alone cannot determine criminality. We are born with certain traits and these traits along with certain environmental factors can cause criminality (Siegel, 2013). According to (Siegel, 2013), the study of sociobiology sparked interest in biological or genetic makeup as an explanation for crime and delinquency. The thought is that biological or genetic makeup controls human behavior, and if this is true, then it should also be responsible for determining whether a person chooses crime or conventional behavior. This theory is referred to as trait theory (Siegel, 2013). According to Siegel (2013), due to the fact that offenders are different, one cannot pinpoint causality to crime to just a single biological or psychological attribute. Trait theorist looks at personal traits like intelligence, personality, and chemical and genetic makeup; and environmental factors, such as family life, educational attainment, economic factors, and neighborhood conditions (Siegel, 2013). There are the Biosocial Trait theories an...
This paper looks at the different theories of criminal behavior that explain why people commit crimes. It goes deeper to analyze the specific theories in a bid to determine why a person may commit a certain crime and another person under the same circumstances may not. The paper focuses on key factors that motivate unruly behavior among people and why such factors are present in some people and not in others. In doing so, the paper leans more on children in order to determine how delinquency behavior is progressively imparted on them as they undergo developmental trajectory.
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 today’s society, one will find that there are many different factors that go into the development of a criminal mind, and it is impossible to single out one particular cause of criminal behavior. Criminal behavior often stems from both biological and environmental factors. In many cases criminals share similar physical traits which the general population do not usually have. For example criminals have smaller brains than properly adjusted individuals. However biological reasons cannot solely be the cause of criminal behavior. Therefore, one must look to other sources as to how a criminal mind is developed. Social and environmental factors also are at fault for developing a person to the point at which they are lead to committing a criminal act. Often, someone who has committed a violent crime shows evidence of a poorly developed childhood, or the unsuitable current conditions in which the subject lives. In addition if one studies victimology which is the role that the victim plays in the crime, it is apparent that there are many different causes for criminal behavior. Through the examination of biological factors, in addition to the social and environmental factors which make up a criminal mind, one can conclude that a criminal often is born with traits common to those of criminals, it is the environment that exist around them that brings out the criminal within them to commit indecent acts of crime.
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.
The nature vs. nurture debate has always been a topic of interest among top researchers, psychologists, and theorists, becoming increasingly significant in the attempt to explain and counter crime. This study seeks to answer the following question: Does social and familial environment drive an individual to commit crimes or does the manifestation of biological traits lead to criminal behavior? Its goal is to analyze different experiments and sources to determine the whether nature or nurture has an effect on an individual’s future personality and tendency to commit crimes. Those arguing for the role of nurture in the shaping of criminal behaviors cite an individual's upbringing as one of the major developmental forces that lead to unlawful
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.
Our personalities are what distinguish us from each other beyond our appearance; without them, we would all behave and react in the same way. Personality is the reason we are outgoing or introverted, persistent or blaze, and anxious or calm. We each have different levels of these competing characteristics that make us unique. But why are personalities so varied? Personality is determined by an array of factors from genetic and biological to the personal experiences and decisions we have faced from the day we are born. The complexity of our personalities cannot be simply explained, and for this reason there exists many different theories of how it’s developed and personality is still deeply under study. I went into this subject with an open-mind
Personality takes many shapes and forms and is affected by many factors. My understanding of personality is simply a genetic and environmentally determined set of psychological traits that influence our reactions in the world around us. Genetic because our parents possess a certain set of psychological personality traits that we tend to have in common with them so therefore in my opinion there are heritable personality traits. Personality is environmental because we each have our own separate experiences in the world and these experiences help form our unique personality. Neo-Freudians such as Jung have given us a wide array of ideas of how they believe personality is developed and formatted. Jung in particular has a very interesting
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 behaviour, these include: genetic theory, hereditary theory, psychosis and brain injury theory. In the next few paragraphs examples of each will be shown. The first theory to be explored is the hereditary theory, which stems from Cesare Lombroso (1876) father of criminology, (Feldman, 1993) whose studies were carried out by morphology.
No one in the whole world has the same personality, but have you ever thought of how their personalities came to be? Personalities are built and influenced by many things and many people. The real question is what affects and molds a personality into what it is today? I believe that these are the four most common things that I believe influence personalities the most: where you grew up/environment influences, genetics/attitude, peers/friends and/or family, values/beliefs.
Human antisocial behaviour is complex and trying to understand it has always proven to be a daunting intelligent task, especially in modern culturally diverse societies. Crime, broadly defined as behaviour through which individuals obtain resources for others through uncouth means, presents as one of the most refractory internal social dilemmas. Understanding individual criminal acts such a murder, rape or motives behind them is intricate, rather their behavioral definitions and causes offers a more clear platform for argumentative reasoning. Criminal behaviour, regardless of manner, involves use of barbaric methodologies to obtain symbolic or material resources. Criminal behavior results from methodical processes that involve intricate interactions among isolated, societal, and environmental factors in people’s lives.