Are Criminals Born or Made? Essay

Crime is often described as socially constructed, which influences our understanding of who commits a crime. Firstly, labelling theorists argue that crime is a social construction based on the powerful’s reaction to certain behaviour, those who are deviant are people that have been labelled as such. Marxists claim the bourgeoise construct crime in order to criminalise the proletariat, get away with their own deviance and maintain their own dominance. Neo-marxists look at how moral panics create a social construction of crime and can criminalise certain groups. Finally, feminists, argue crime is constructed in a patriarchal way and that the criminal justice system is harsher to female offenders. Whereas others criticise these theories for

In comparison Merton’s theory put forward a entirely different rationalisation of the causes of crime, and juxtaposing major ideals about who commits these crimes, Marxists points out that absence of egalitarianism of opportunity is at the centre of the capitalist system and Merton contends that not all individuals who lack genuine opportunities look to crime to do so. (Eglin and Hester, 2013).

However, an underlying weakness of Durkheim is that his theory basically assumes individuals do not have a choice over their actions as their lives are predestined because of the social conditions in which they live in (Burke, 2005, p.127). This implies that there is no scientific evidence and therefore impossible to locate any acceptable mechanism to explain social change which has led to his work being dismissed methodically (Ronald, 1991). Therefore, Merton’s theory is not just denying any reason for social change, but it could create the assumption that deviance behaviour is more common in lower class where individuals live in poor social environments so are ultimately prone to take the path of crime.

"When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw," (Kazi, 2017). The modern societies around the world put a high importance on preventing criminal activity and rectifying behavior that leads to crime. In an ongoing struggle against corruption, many sociologists, and psychologists have done in-depth research to understand what is the cause of crime in our society. Initially, in 1893, Emile Durkheim first came up with the idea called Anomie Theory to explain why offenses take place in our communities. Durkheim reported that crimes took place in our society because there was a lack of ethical norms and social standards within our communities (Walsh, 2018).However, almost half a century later, Robert K. Merton developed Merton's Strain Theory to thoroughly explain why some people in our society are more likely to commit crimes than the others who don’t. Merton’s Strain Theory argues that corruption not only occurs in our communities because we lack norms in our society, but are also caused by the strains that are present among us as individuals which influence people to commit the crime. In his explanation, people will resort to achieving success through illegitimate means when they are blocked from acquiring success through legitimate means (Walsh, 2018). After studying the classical strain theories, I think that Merton’s Strain Theory explains street crimes such as robbery, theft, assault, and drug dealing better than

Marxist sociologists argue that in order to understand crime and deviance, one needs to realise that it is the nature of exploitative economic systems that capitalist societies have in

Biological positivism was formed by Cesare Lombroso which he believed criminal are genetically gifted leading to irrational decision. He believed that “...criminals are born, not made,…inherited and/or physiologically determined” (Sapsford, 1981, p.262). The reason why this theory were being used and compared was because it uses scientific measures comparing to Chicago school which uses qualitative measures as to why people committed crime. Lombroso noticed that criminal tend to share similar genetic traits such as structures of bones and missing or additional of chromosome. Twins study has shown result that fraternal twins have lower probability of both siblings being a criminal comparing to identical twins, higher chance of both

The second theory I would like to discuss is the Strain theory. The strain theory basically states that crime breeds in the gap, imbalance, or disjunction between culturally induced aspirations for economic success and structurally distributed possibilities of achievement. The theory assumes fairly uniform economic success aspirations across social class and the theory attempts to explain why crime is concentrated among the lower classes that have the least legitimate opportunities for achievement. It is the combination of the cultural emphasis and the social structure which produces intense pressure for

Criminals are born not made is the discussion of this essay, it will explore the theories that attempt to explain criminal behaviour. Psychologists have come up with various theories and reasons as to why individuals commit crimes. 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.

However, while the overstimulation of the Id and the failure to acquire and develop the the Ego and SuperEgo leads to criminal tendencies, while aggression may be out of adaptive values, and while genetic studies have pointed towards the influence of genes and criminal behaviour, these theories alone are insufficient to account for crime. Evolutionary theory does not explain or predict for the extreme degrees of aggression in individuals nor has the genetic theory proven for 100% heritability; which raises the need for us to examine the Nurture camp of crime theories as well.

One researcher studied a theory relating to sociopaths and their antisocial behavior. This specific study proposed a theory that a primary sociopath is lacking in moral development and does not feel socially responsible for their actions. This type of sociopath is a product of the individual's personality, physiotype, and genotype, which supports the theory that a person’s genotype is the significant factor in the development of criminality. There is a secondary sociopath that develops in response to his or her environment because of how and where they were raised. Living in an urban residence, having a low socioeconomic status, or poor social skills can lead an individual to being unsuccessful in reaching their needs in a socially desirable way, which can turn into antisocial or criminal behavior. This supports the theory that the environment is the significant factor in the development of criminality. With these studies, it shows that both the genetic make-up of an individual as well as the environment play an important role with what kind of person they are going to be as an adult.

First off, there have been ample amounts of disapproval in relation to the general theory of crime, because many scholars feel that Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) failed to include the

In accordance with Marxist theory, it is the views of the powerful that dominate, as they have the ability to make their views prevail. It would then appear that what constitutes a crime is open to debate; moreover, the criminals who we choose to despise, are they no more than mere victims of our own perceptions. Our own social conditioning? To see why this is, we must look to the very basis of society and how it decides what is right or wrong.

Criminals are born not made is the discussion of this essay, it will explore the theories that attempt to explain criminal behavior. Psychologists have come up with various theories and reasons as to why individuals commit crimes. 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 behavior, these include: genetic theory, hereditary theory,.

For the most part, biological theories of crime and deviance have had an unsuccessful and undistinguished career among sociologists. The Italian physician Cesare Lombroso suggested that someone who is born criminal possesses atavism or primitive evolutionary characteristics that produced violent, savage, and apelike tendencies in humans (Goode, p. 27). In addition, biological theories of deviance see crime and deviant behavior as a form of illness due to pathological factors to certain individuals. The biological theory is another example of Charles Whitman actions. Smart, strong, and talented, Charles Whitman seemed like a perfect all-American boy stereotype.

What makes people want to commit crimes? Are criminals any different than us? Does committing a crime mean there is something wrong with you, such as a psychological problem? Do all criminals have the same kind of personality? Is a criminal born or made? Questions like this and many more will be elaborated on throughout this paper.