The Article “OVERCOMING THE MYTH OF FREE WILL IN CRIMINAL LAW: THE TRUE IMPACT OF THE GENETIC REVOLUTION” in the Duke Law Journal reports about the state of the criminal justice system in America with new genetic discoveries. The author Mathew Jones explains how some scientists have come to the idea that aggression and ones affinity to criminal behavior may be dependent on their genetic make-up. He explains that our system is based on the assumption that as a majority human beings have free will over the decisions in whether to act or not act in criminal behavior. He also foreshadows each side of the augment’s’ perception of its impacts. Jones highlights the intellectual backing we have for punishing, arresting, and deterring criminal behavior …show more content…
on the basis of free will. The reasoning is more for social order and practical reasoning because it would be increasingly difficult and expensive to deal with criminals on a genetic level assuming that a majority of them have free will. As a country and a race we have long relied on the free will reasoning. Changing that concept would be on a similar level to when people thought the world was flat and trying to convince them that it was round. The controversy of this theory would not only crack a system we currently rely on but would also mean that for thousands of years we wrongful punished those who cannot help themselves. The ramifications of that idea would shake not only our nation but probably our world. In light of the research presented, the idea that some are more prone to aggressive behavior is unquestionable; however, to whether someone’s genetics should be the basis of our criminal justice system is something that I would not agree with. Both practically and morally I see this implementation as an issue. While these studies may show that a majority of criminals share similar genetic traits including being prone to aggression does not necessarily mean they have no free will or chose as to whether they commit a crime. This relation and correlation between these criminals does not necessarily imply causation. These genetic links most likely do not determine systematic behavior but personality traits at best. To believe that generations of criminals committed crime because they were predestined to do so actually creates more of an excuse and will not create an outlet in which we can protect society. The idea that free will is a myth concerns me.
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. I also see that the scholars “underestimate the resiliency of the criminal justice system,” and that this evidence cannot be completely denied. Since I cannot effectively argue properly researched science I would have to stay that some are possibly prone to criminal behavior for genetic reasons but on a minority. From my standpoint I would have to agree with Jones’s conclusion that the criminal justice system will neither crumble from nor ignore the new genetic research but rather integrate it on some level in its
sentencings.
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
Wilson, Jim. Criminal Genes. Popular Science. Pars International Corp. New York, NY. November 12, 2002. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282176.html
Bower, B. "Criminal Destiny: Nature Meets Nurture." Science News 125.22 (1984): 342. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 7 Dec. 2011.
Biological positivism is the theory that there is something biologically inferior about criminals that makes them predisposed to criminality (Vold, et all, 2010). Throughout its history, biological positivism has focused on different aspects of a human’s biology. Its creator, Cesare Lombroso, described criminals as “throwbacks” to primitive peoples in terms of human evolution. He theorized that criminals were physically different than non-criminals. While he described these differences as differences in facial structure, Lombroso’s idea later developed into modern biological positivism that focused on genetics, brain functions, and brain development. This modern view of biological positivism is one of the theories that best describe a primary child psychopath’s development into an adu...
Due to an increased surge of criminality in many cities during the 1900s, eugenicists began to focus on the role of genes in determining criminal behavior. Many lived by the motto “culture does not make the man, but man makes the culture.” This essentially stated that the less fortunate tend to create and gravitate towards poverty stricken environments. While scientists did not totally weigh out the environmental influence on criminality, they did believe the main cause of criminal behavior was defective genes.
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...
The major premise of this is that the development of the unconscious personality early in childhood influences behavior for the rest of a person’s life. Criminals have weak egos and damaged personalities. The main focus of this is mental illness. In regards to social learning theory, one’s criminal behavior is learned through human interactions. Learning theories help explain the role that peers, family, and education play in shaping criminal and conventional behaviors. If crime were a matter of personal traits alone, these elements of socialization would not play such an important a part in determining human behaviors. Mental illness is part of the major crime causation for trait theory. According to some estimates, as much as 50% of the U.S. prison population suffers from some form of mental
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.
M: Landau (2011) More on the criminal brain: Nature vs. nurture retrieved February 4. 2014 from http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/28/more-on-the-criminal-brain-nature-vs-nurture/?iref=allaearch/
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
While reviewing the different assessments of biological perspectives of crime there seemed to be a general consensus against many of these theories. The biological perspectives were categorizing people by their biological traits such as, body type, heredity genes, hormones, central nervous system, and so on. The strongest argument against these perspectives is the lack of evidence in all of these theories. According to Walters (1989), “current research examining the relationship between genetics and crime is replete with serious methodological oversights, inconsistent data collection practices, and fundamental problems of analysis and exposition” (p.457). Lombroso was “one of the first investigators to assess the possible connection between
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.
... 86). Hence why I believe that criminal behaviour is influenced by mixture of a persons social background, life chances and pathology
TANNENBAUN, B, (2007),Profs link criminal behaviour to genetics [online] , Available at: http://thedp.com/index.php/article/2007/11/profs_link_criminal_behavior_to_genetics [accessed 16th October 2011].
I now know that criminology prefer to highlight the correlations between crimes’ social climates and criminals’ psychological states of mind. While some argues that criminal behavior is a result of individuals’ association with criminal peers, other claims that crime is a reflection of an individual’s genetic disadvantages. I have come to learn that there are no universally agreed formulas on decoding crimes and criminal behaviors. What we have, however, is a manual full of academic opinions and subjective views that have emerged alongside of the development of criminology. At the same time, the volume of conflicting perspectives that I have stumble upon in studying criminology reminded me again that the success of our current assessment models has yet to be determined. Thus, the study of criminology is an appropriate practice that will further prepare me to conduct meaningful research on legal studies and to provide accurate and in-depth findings in the near