Nature vs. Nurture – Are Criminals Born Or Made?

Do individuals become criminals as a result of heredity or genetics or is it their environment that is in fact at play? This question has left Criminologists in debate for the better part of our modern era. In order to help answer this question we must first take a closer look at the concept of Nature vs. Nurture, a popular psychological term initially created by Darwin and other positivists. “Nature vs. Nurture” refers to internal and external factors that play a role in behaviour, in this case in reference to criminals. “Nature” is paired up with the biological explanation known as internal factors. “Supporters of the biological perspective argue that we must identify the role of heredity and the importance of biophysical, as well as biosocial factors, in the environment.” “Nurture”, on the other hand, is always paired up with the psychological and environmental explanation known as external factors. Supporters of psychological or environmental perspective argue that we are influenced less by heredity than by social external influence. (Winterdyk, 2006:117-118). For the purpose of this essay, each perspective will be written about individually to obtain a more objective view.

“Nature” – Biological Perspective

* “A study on the prevalence of mental health problems among male federal inmates revealed that a significant number of the offenders surveyed met the criteria for anti-social personality disorders (Motiuk & Porporino, 1992).”

* “Comparing 41 murderers to 41 matched control patients, Raine, Buschshaum, and La Casse (1997) found that murderers had significantly lower levels of glucose uptake in the prefrontal cortex of the brain.”

* “In summarizing the observations of several keynote speakers at the June 1995 conference called Violence as a Public Health Issue, held in Midland, Ontario, Carter noted that ‘young people are more violent than ever before’ and that there appeared to be some organic (biological) linkages (Carter, 1995:28-29).” (Winterdyk, 2006:118)

The above are three brilliant examples of how biology plays a key role in the way criminal minds are formed. These examples, to an extent prove that in some cases, people can not escape their biology. According to Scott, 2005, genetics is the most argued point of criminology today. Some believe that genetics cause people to commit crimes. Geneticists research to find out if a certain chromosome combination will automatically make you a criminal or not; if this is true you could see even before your child was born if it would be a criminal in society. These studies proved very successful. Here are some outcomes of the geneticist and their lab studies (Ritter, 2006):

One of the most used theories of why criminals commit crimes is the person’s ability to commit crime is pre-determined. If that is so, criminals have no choice of what they do. Some of the genetic abnormalities that would make someone pre-determined would be the XYY chromosomal structure (Not effective in women, just men). A chromosomal test in prisons had an outcome of 27Y, which means most of the prisoners had that many Y chromosomes. This is a chemical imbalance caused from genetics.

These theories have been tested on people in prison and have seemed to have a high outcome. The “criminal disease” could be caused by a recessive gene passed down from one or both of the parents. This means if it is recessive in a female that both parents must give 2 recessive genes to get that disease. That is why you rarely see female criminals in our society. If the parents give the recessive gene to the male offspring then the male automatically has the disease since he does not have another X chromosome to have another dominant chromosome to overwrite the disease. Therefore, a person may carry the disease and it may not show for many generations and suddenly show up in someone. You can never tell unless you study the genes and DNA very closely.

When examining the DNA of a person the geneticist has to search for very small errors in the code. Some examples of this would be broken parts off of some chromosomes or even less or more than normal chromosomes (Ritter, 2006). In the future geneticists might be able to view one’s offspring’s chromosomes and be able to alter the genes to make the person “normal”. With the help of genetic engineering it is possible to make a child with certain traits depending what traits the parents have. They can make the child “normal” and not have any genetic disorders. This might reduce crime rates in the world and make things safer. This process takes time and money, but in the future there will be cheaper and faster ways of doing this as is with all technology.

Genetically mutated chromosomes are definitely one way of explaining criminal behaviour, but there are others. For example, the interpretation and classification of physical features has been around for nearly two millennia, tracing its roots back to Socrates. This “scientific” way of classifying individuals was termed Physiognomy. Swiss theologian Johann Kaspar Lavater (1741-1801) was an active student and writer on this subject, releasing four volumes of work. He coined such expressions as: a “weak” chin and “shifty” eyes (Winterdyk, 2006).

Ernst Kretschmer (1920’s) and William Sheldon (1940’s) developed a system which showed a definite connection between a person’s physical traits and their attitude or temperament. They essentially put individuals into one of two categories and two sub-categories: cycloids and schizoids and their sub-categories being eliptoids and hysterics. Cycloids were bi-polar personalities which accounted for 10-20 percent of the criminal population. Schizoids were seen as hysterics and apparently made up 50-90 percent of the criminal community. These labels were later criticised and somewhat discredited as they did not have a corresponding body type or physical trait. Kretschmer ideas were improved upon by the American physician William H. Sheldon. Sheldon developed a system of classification which was seen to be much more accurate than Kretschmer’s. Sheldon based his concept on the interpretation of the human embryo’s three tissue layers. He was able to classify individuals by grouping them into one of three labels. Each label has a body type along with a temperament that is associated with it. For example: (a) Endomorphic – heavy set individuals, soft in appearance, smooth soft skin.

(b) Viscerotonic – extroverted, easy-going, enjoy an easy life.

Unlike Kretschmer, Sheldon did not view his labels exclusive and believed that each could be interrelated since every person is unique, thus a system could never really incorporate every single character. (Winterdyk, 2006)

Franz Joseph Gall (1758-1825) was essentially the first to create a system of phrenology. This method examines a patient’s exterior skull to measure behaviour traits associated with various curves or bumps. Although Gall is known as the developer of this systematic method, its roots can be traced back to Aristotle who used measurements of the skull in similar ways. And although Gall is given credit to the 26 faculties he identified of behaviour he found on the skull, it is Johann Gaspar Spurzheim (1776-1832) who succeeded him and added many more to the list as well as bring the concept to North America. Spurzheim was a believer of the “biological deterministic perspective”; but he also noted that behaviour could be altered through “intellectual and moral development” (Nurture) (Winterdyk, 2006).

“Nurture” – Environmental/Psychological Perspective

Just as Spurzheim suspected that behaviour might have something to do with reasons outside of heredity, countless others have are do as well. Let’s now take a look at our “Nurture” perspective.

If genetic reasons don’t control crime what does? Most of the criminologist today, still believe the same thing that was thought when we first started to look into crime; it’s the environment and nothing else. Genetics has no play, because if one is never introduced to a life of crime one will not know what crime is, and will probably not attempt to break law, but if one grow up in a house of crime then one is much more likely to become a criminal; Proof of the environmental theory lies in the fact that most criminals do grow up in a broken or deviant household. But then again some don’t. Most criminals do start at an early age thus showing that they do have a desire to commit crime, which could be an indicator of the environment at play. Perhaps though, peer pressure is at play as well, could these young criminals be influenced by the children that they hang around? Do these children affect the way they think what they do, and how they do it? The answer that most studies conclude is that social circles play a huge role in developing behaviour. (Gado, 2000).

The middle to late 1800s was when psychological-based explanations arouse (Winterdyk, 2006). The “father of sociology”, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), had a life-long interest in crime and its role in society. His innovative ideas on how social structure affects human behavior influenced sociologists for generations to come. Durkheim believed that crime is natural behavior whose composition is the result of many diversified forces. Durkheim’s ideas led to the famous Chicago School of Sociology, a set of principles that became very popular in the 1930s. This school of thought focused upon society as the force behind criminal behavior.

Robert Merton, a disciple of Durkheim, said criminal acts were the result of socially created behavior rather than simple impulses. Merton stated that society offers the same goals and rewards to all its citizens. But the means and opportunity to reach these goals are not the same for everyone in society. Merton said people will commit crimes because they feel cheated out of something to which they were entitled. However, Merton couldn’t explain white-collar crime in which the perpetrators are usually wealthy, educated and not deprived from any of society’s rewards. It simply didn’t make sense that people who were already rich would steal more money because they felt “cheated.” For those crimes, the explanation had to be elsewhere. (Spencer, 2004)

Conclusion

Applying the nature/nurture question to human behavior nearly always generates trouble. Because science is a stepwise progression of improvements of methods, scientists often avoid conclusions which may have harmful sociological or political effects on groups of people. In my opinion, criminals are sometimes not the result of nature nor nurture respectively; they are a result of both. According to Winterdyk, 2006, Charles Goring was one of the first to suggest that crime may be the result of both nature and nurture: “crime = heredity x environment” With the exception of perhaps those criminals who are solely driven by biological tendencies such as born sociopaths or pedophiles, most criminals in my opinion are a complex combination of an unbalanced biology and environment. Favoring one school of thought over the other will not give us an accurate representation of our society, thus both should always be examined in criminal cases.

References:

Carter, P. (1995, September). Violence: From the grave to the cradle. Financial Post Magazine, 23-48

Gado, M. (2000). “Criminals are Made, Not Born!” Crime Library

Retrieved on March 7, 2006 from http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/crime_motivation/10.html
Motiuk, L.L. & Porporino, F. (1992). Statistical profiles of homicide, sex, robbery and drug offenders in federal corrections.

Correctional Service of Canada, Research brief B-11

Ritter, M. (2006) The “Y” Of It All Chaotic Web Development

Retrieved on March 4, 2006 from http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/men/y_of_it_all.htm

Scott, S.L. (2005). What Makes A Serial Killer? Crime Library

Retrieved on March 3, 2006 from http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/tick/victims_1.html

Spencer, A.R. (2004). Psychology Concepts and Connections 7th Edition Toronto:

Nelson Thomson Learning Canada

Winterdyk, J. (2006). Canadian Criminology 2nd Edition Toronto:

Pearson Education Canada