Biological And Genetic Factors That Influence Behavior On Children

The behavior of a criminal individual is a major center point for psychologists. Many experts have researched and debated the outcome of criminal behavior. Is it genetic makeup that makes an individual a criminal or is it their upbringing and background that influences their behavior? Studies and laboratory experiments have been used to try to determine the conclusion of an individual’s deviant behavior. The debate of this topic has resulted in concepts that both DNA and the conditions of an individual’s environment do play an important factor in the misconduct of an individual. There are also criminology theories such as classical theory, positivist theory, and deterrence of theory that help support the study of criminal behavior. These theories

This paper summarizes four theories of criminology. Rational choice theory states that criminals act based on a thought process that weighs the pros and cons of criminality. Criminologists who believe in this theory feel that most criminals are people capable of having rational thoughts before committing a crime. Trait theory is the view of criminology that suggests criminality is a product of abnormal biological or psychological traits. Criminologists who believe in this theory feel that criminals choose to commit crime because of a brain anomaly or chemical imbalance. Social structure theory is “a view that disadvantaged economic class position is a primary cause of crime” (Seigel 139). Those who follow this theory often believe social forces can have a great effect on whether or not a person commits a crime. An example would be those who are poor are more being more prone to commit crime. Social process theory is a view that criminality depends on how a person interacts with different organizations and institutions and processes in society. For example, a family would be considered

Biological factors alone are not a sufficient reason why crime occurs. An example would be looking at testosterone and adult deviance. Most studies have shown no correlation with circulating testosterone and behavior. However, there is significance to examining biological factors. The answer lies in the fact that biological explanations of crime understate the important role of social conditions. (Conklin, p 93). When looking at biological and social combined, there is a moderately strong relationship between testosterone and social integration while growing up. Social integration can be fragmented due to less social opportunities by being in lower-class status, unmarried, and an unstable work history. (Conklin, p 96).

It was not a topic that was brought up earlier, because there was tainted history of using biology to figure logistics of criminal behavior. Instead, criminologists look at social and environmental factors such as poverty rates, drug/weapon accessibility, and socialization. Over 100 studies have shown genes play a role in crime. Kevin Beaver, an associate professor at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice states approximately 50 percent of a human’s aggressive behavior is comprised of the thousands of expressed genes affected by the environment (Cohen). The other half of a human’s aggressive behavior is usually environmental or social factors such as, neighborhood, wealth, and education. It is important to also know the other factors that “make” someone a criminal because it will also help researcher see what else contributes to criminal activity (Eysenck).

Biological criminology began many years ago along with the scientist Cesare Lombroso. He believed that criminals are born, not made. A “born criminal”, is a “defective individual”, whom has natural or instinctive tendencies towards low types of social life. (Biosocial and Psychological Theories, Feb. 11, 2014) Biological criminology believes criminals are genetically determined but face major shortcomings for being “simplistic, untestable, illogical, and often ideological” (Biosocial and Psychological Theories, Feb. 11, 2014). By the 1950’s, biological theories had almost been wiped out because of the lack of support. Today we see some form of biological criminology intertwined with sociological theory. We see the interaction of biological and environmental variables playing a role in a person’s behavior. The original nature argument of biological criminology was rewritten as not nature versus nurture, but as “nature via nurture”. (Biosocial and Psychological Theories, Feb. 11, 2014)

First, psychological theory suggests that a person’s environment and past can influence their ability and desire to commit crime while biological theory suggest a person’s DNA makeup could influence their ability to commit crime. “Biological theories within the field of criminology attempt to explain behaviors contrary to societal expectations through examination of

This study also found that low parental love and interest including lack of support, were key features within childhood criminal offenders with psychopathic characteristics (Carney, 2004). Theorists such as Comte believe that current methodologies of criminals need to be shifted away from the motives, feelings and internal meanings of criminals (TSR, 2012). Comte believed that there is a need to use methodologies that focus more on collecting information about the phenomena that can be objectively observed, as criminal’s mental states and consciousness cannot be observed or measured within an objective way (Twynham, 2009). Current methodologies usually look for correlations and strengths of relationships to define what determinants influence criminal activity. These determinants researched include the influence that social, environmental, cultural and genetic factors have on criminal behavior and activity (Twynham, 2009). These methodologies are in place to create better evidence and have a clearer understanding of these relationships, in order to tackle this public health issue and reduce crime rates within society. Positivists and Durkheim believe that criminal behaviors and motives can be discovered by using methodologies that collect objective facts on social world influences in a statistical form and through repeated checking of these findings can

As time continues to progress so does science and from this has come out many criminological perspectives—including feminist, Marxist, and modern biosocial, but what is the purpose of each perspective? And more importantly, how do they benefit traditional criminological theories? Simply put the purpose of each perspective to take a look at something that traditional theories ignored while also explaining why it’s important we take a look at this ideal when considering why crime might occur.

In a criminology perceptive standpoint, criminologists disseminate their varied understandings of criminal behavior by the aspects of sociology, psychology, anthropology, and biological theories. Through the early philosophies of crime studies, the classical theory foist the belief of censurable punishment can deter people from committing criminal acts. The biological positivists believe that certain biological and mental traits present at birth can make people more contingent to crime. On the other hand, the sociological theorists believe that a person’s gauche social status within family, academia, and society are determinants of criminal behavior. The accurate lab results of psychology corroborate the explanation of criminal behavior by

Over the past two decades, the relationship between biosocial factors and crime has led to several fruitful lines of research, supporting the interacting roles of nature and nurture in the development of criminality. The "blank slate" view of human nature implied by a socialization explanation is impossible in terms of modern evolutionary biology. In addition to being scientifically illogical, the tabula rasa view is disrespectful of human dignity as it views us as mere pawns of the environment. As Darwin argued about the innateness of human behaviors and the heritability of criminal tendencies, genes are found to be important in criminology, antisocial behavior, and violence. It makes clear how criminology and human inequality can be presented as a biosocial relationship; a perspective that many criminological luminaries expect to be the dominant paradigm for the twenty first century.

Biosocial theories believe biological or genetic risk factors along with their environment impact an individual’s predisposition to engage in criminal behavior throughout their life. The biological risk factors tied with their environment can also impact an individual’s predilection to develop antisocial behavior or tendencies, violent or aggressive behavior, impulsivity, lack of social responsibility and their ability to learn complex behavior patterns. Several empirical studies regarding biosocial theory and its components will be reviewed within this paper followed by an explanation as to why a policy in policing and corrections with its basis in biosocial theory would not be effective.

goes into depth about how criminal behaviour is a result of multiple social factors, alongside the influence of genetics. This article gives details about how perception of this topic has evolved overtime from a biological standpoint, to social standpoint, and currently a combination of both. There is a sufficient amount of detail that explains how criminal behaviour and activity evolves throughout one’s childhood depending on hereditary factors, and events that take place while developing. This source is one that is very effective due to the efficient amount of facts, statistics, and research studies provided. It can also be inferred that this is unbiased because there are no opinions from the author herself, but rather she decided to detail the realistic elements of this recurring debate. With the use of data from famous psychologist Adriane Raine, and the many studies conducted worldwide, Jenni R. is able to provide reputable information that is more effective than sources that did not include such knowledge. This article will likely be the most useful due to the fact that it relates the most to the thesis. Not only will it provide proof for the biological and social aspect of this essay, but it will also give information to make connections between the two. Furthermore, the studies that are explained within the article will definitely be of good use when relating the arguments to real life examples. This in turn will further prove the thesis.

A child’s ability to perform is determined by both biological and environmental factors. Depending on the situation the children are experiencing, the percentage of genetic and environmental factors that are responsible for the results varies. For example, 68% of genetic is accountable for the possibility that a child is suffering from bipolar disorder while 32% is from environmental factors, as compared to the 40% genetics and 60% environmental factor that is responsible for eating disorder (Tan, 2015). A study conducted by Beben Benyamin, a researcher from Queensland Brain Institute and his partner has proved that for psychiatric, ophthalmological and skeletal characteristics, genetics plays a larger role while for social values and attitudes,

Conventional criminology focused on what motivated a person to commit a crime, and that crime rates across social locations are determined by the number of criminally motivated offenders in any given location, for example growing up in the inner city, raised in disorganized communities, having abusive parents or association with bad role models, these criminogenic forces in society can be blame for crime to occur.

There are four top social risk factors believed for the involvement of crime. Parental behavior plays a large role in a child’s risk of involvement of crime because of the parent’s influence on a child’s development (“Social Risk Factors for Involvement of Crime”). Poor parenting in supervision, maltreatment of a child, or if the parent is a