Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Causes of criminal behaviour
Causes of criminal behaviour
Biological influences on personality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Causes of criminal behaviour
An explanation is about to be given on criminal behavior and what causes it. Many wonder what exactly causes such behavior, even though the answer is right in front of them. Simply stated behavior is influenced by nature and nurture. What is nature and nurture? Obviously, an explanation is going to be given. How can knowing what nature and nurture are help prove that actions are influenced by them? The answer to this question is simple. Studies on fraternal twins who were separated have been performed to prove just how people are influenced. The answer of course, being we are influenced by nature and nurture. Nature is our DNA, or more simply said nature is our genes. Obviously, our genes influence more than just how we look. Our genes also influence how we think and act. For a moment we are going to return to the example of the criminal. The only explanation for natures influence on the criminal must be the criminal had genes specific to criminal activity. The genes of criminal intentions are known as monoamine oxidase. People who possess these genes may start acting in violent ways, or they may not. Genes do not act alone in directing people’s actions. As stated earlier they work hand in hand with nurture. …show more content…
No one should expect for their actions not to be influenced by the environment they are raised in. Going back to the example of the criminal once more, his actions were motivated by the environment in which he was raised in. The criminal may have been maltreated as a child. This maltreatment lead to activation of the criminal’s monoamine oxidase gene. Had the criminal been treated well as a child the monoamine oxidase gene would have had a much lower chance of activating. Thus, the criminal’s actions were motivated by nature and nurture. If further proof is required a twin study can be taken into
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.
Nature and nurture are no longer a debate; we see the two working together in concert to produce a genuine expression of the individual. The personalities and habits humans acquire in their lives is as much a biological evolution as it is a social or cultural acclimatization. While some people still have the argument that it is nature or it is nurture many people have come to the realization that is has to be both. Both nature and nurture developed who we are and what we become. So the question would remain which one influences us more on if we become a criminal. In that it is meant people that live outside the acceptable social norms of that society that may involve punishment or rehabilitation. The impression that people become criminals due to their inheritable factor has not been a popular idea amongst criminologist and has incited anger amongst a lot of them. There have been amazing findings in the fields of genetics that have encouraged a biological evaluation in other social sciences. This has also steered to the appearance of a criminology sub-field called Biocriminology.
1. Cesare Lombroso applied the methods of natural science (observation, measurement, experimentation, statistical analysis) to the study of criminal behavior. Lombroso rejected the classical theory of crime, associated with Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, which explained criminal activity as freely chosen behavior based on the rational calculation of benefit and loss, pleasure and pain. Critically analyze both schools of thought and provide an opinion as to what theory you believe is more relevant.
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...
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...
Through time, psychologists have argued over whether only our genes control our behaviors in life or if the environment and the people surrounding us have any effect in our lives. This is called nature versus nurture. We do not know what dictates our behavior, or if it is a combination of both. One question is, if genes control our behavior, are we really responsible for our actions? I think that if we can make choices we are responsible for our actions. While or genes influence various aspects of our personalities, there is no denying that our environment has some effects too. Our genes make us, but our experiences and our surroundings shape the way we behave as people. The people we grow up with, especially our parents teach us ways of acting and thinking that we keep for the rest of our lives.
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
The discussion of nature versus nurture is always highly debated. However, it is not that simple of it being one or the other. Rather that nature and nurture go hand and hand. So much of what makes up a person is not done consciously but lies in the unconscious. How a person views themselves is dependent on what that person does in their life. The negative outlook can form a negative self -view that will hinder a person’s achievements. A person develops and matures over time with life experiences shaping who they end up becoming. Positive experiences can shape a person’s personality for the better. What is positive to one person may not be seen as positive to another. Rewards and punishments are motivations of behavior. People are likely
It is a fact that criminals have a smaller brains than law abiding citizens. Often, offenders share particular physical traits such as, being young males, muscular, having lower than average IQ, and a impulsive personality. Serial offenders are usually hyperactive and difficult children If a person has a low IQ, it is proven to be directly related to their tendency to be commit impulse actions that provide an immediate payoff. For instance, a rape or a mugging would provide a criminal with an immediate payoff. It is proven that crime often runs in families. In fact, chronic criminals are proven to be three times more likely to have criminal children. However, despite this information, scientists have no basis to come to any conclusions with this data. Therefore, one must consider other possible factors that may create a criminal mind, to come to a reasonable decision as to how one is developed.
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.
Criminologists and sociologist have long been in debate for century's to explain criminal behaviour. The two main paradigms of thought are between 'nature' and 'nurture'. Nature is in reference to a learnt behaviour where a multitude of characteristics, in society influence whether a person becomes deviant such as poverty, physical abuse or neglect. Nurture defines biological features which could inevitability lead to a individuals deviant or criminal behaviour, because criminality is believed by biological positivist to be inherited from a persons parents. However, I believe that criminal behaviour is a mixture of characteristics that lead to deviant acts such as psychological illness & Environmental factors. Therefore, this essay will aim to analyse both biological positivist and psychological positivist perspectives in hope of showing to what extent they play a role in criminal behaviour. Firstly, the essay will look at Cesare Lombroso's research on physical features and how these ideas have moved on to then develop scientific ideas such as genetics to explain criminal behaviour. Secondly, the essay will focus on external factors which may be able to explain criminal behaviour such as the social influences, life chances and Material deprivation.
Nature is described as our physical attributes and genes from when we are born. Our genetics that make us who we are include our eye colour, height and hair colour, as well as our natural talents, abilities and our intelligence level.
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.
The distinction between nature versus nurture or even environment versus heredity leads to the question of: does the direct environment or the nature surrounding an adolescent directly influence acts of delinquency, later progressing further into more radical crimes such as murder or psychotic manifestation, or is it directly linked to the hereditary traits and genes passed down from that individual adolescent’s biological parents? To answer this question one must first understand the difference between nature, nurture, environment, and heredity. Nurture, broken down further into environment, is defined as various external or environmental factors one is exposed to which can be more specifically broken down into social and physical aspects. Nature, itself broken down into heredity, is defined as the genetics and the individual characteristics in one’s personality or even human nature.
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...