Complications Of Moral Developments In The Movie Theater Shooting

An additional aspect connected with psychopathy is the incomplete repressed capability to make the dissimilarity among ethical and conventional offenses. An ethical offense could be explained as one that is distinct due to its punishments relevant to the privileges and welfare of individuals. A conventional offense could be explained by its punishments relevant for the good of the social order. In the instance of those with psychopathy, individuals make a reduced amount of association to the victims that were part of the situation, and additionally appear to have a time that is more complex trying distinguishing between ethical and conventional offenses mentioned during the situation. ("Psychopathy: A Misunderstood Personality Disorder", 2011). Therefore, if there is nothing eliminating the action or offense, adults as well as children with psychopathy, will most likely illustrate a diminished capacity to differentiate between the two types of offenses.

The behaviourist approach believes that people, as well as animals, are controlled by their surrounding environment which has a direct impact upon their behaviour and whether they would suffer from mental illness (McLeod, S. 2007). Whereas the biological approach views genes, chromosomes and the nervous system as contributing factors to mental health and the way people behave, this theory believes that people have inherited traits of mental illness which may have adapted through evolution. These perspectives argue whether nature (biological) or nurture (behaviourist) have an influence over life and life decisions which has caused numerous ongoing debates (McLeod, S. 2007).

However, more recently, a study led by King’s College London has claimed that there are differences between the brains of psychopaths and other criminal offenders diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. Dr. Nigel Blackwood who led the research is quoted as saying “We describe those without psychopathy as 'hot-headed' and those with psychopathy as ‘cold-hearted’.” This statement shows a clear distinction between what should be interpreted as a lack of self-control and ability to repress impulses and what should be diagnosed as psychopathy.
The study took MRI scans of 66 men, two thirds of which were offenders who had been diagnosed with antisocial personality whilst the other third were non-offenders considered to not have any personality disorders. Of the 44 offenders, 17 met the diagnosis criteria for psychopathy (ASPD+P) assessed by the guidelines stated in the DSM-IV. Researchers saw that the members of the study diagnosed as psychopaths had notably less grey matter in areas associated with moral behaviour and understanding other peoples’

The Aurora Colorado theater shooting is significant from both a behavioral and a security management perspective. From a behavioral perspective, Holmes’ incident reinforced the stigma of mental health as it correlated to mass shootings. The significance from the security manager’s perspectives is that it brought the threat of “active shooters” to the forefront of security prevention, preparation, response, and recovery.

Over the years, many social scientists have offered a number of theories to explain personality trait and development. But while this debate continues, one aspect of personality development continues to engender a great deal of controversy: personality pathology. This area of concentration seems to have garnered more attention in recent years, as experts scramble to offer explanations and analysis for what appears to be a general decline in the moral fabric of American society, fueled by what appears to be a general coarsening of civility among certain segments of our population. Are more people simply being born with personality disorders that ultimately lead them down this path? Not so according to the basic principles of the

The Origins of Morality: How Nature, Nurture, and Especially Free Will Influence One’s Moral Framework

No one can be certain whether nature or nurture is the cause for criminal behavior. However, research has stated that it is more often an interaction between genes and the environment that predicts criminal behavior (Jones, 2005). Through a biological perspective, it is determined that criminal behavior is due to genetics and/or neurological conducts. It concludes that criminals are born due to their criminal traits being passed down through genetic or chromosomal mutation. Another explanation of criminal behavior within the biological perspective are the neurochemicals within our brains and body. There many regulated chemicals in the brain that determines thought process, perception and action. Like the arguments for genetic and chromosomal mutation, any abnormal anomalies or chemical imbalance can heavily impact behavior (Schram, 2018). This goes for any damages to some parts of the brain that controls emotions, reason and logic. Problems with the biological perspective are the following: 1. It provide little explanations for a small of minority of offenders with specific conditions (Levitt, 2013). 2. Disregard the effect of environmental influences and life experiences that also impact behavior. 3. Since criminality is based on biology, it is unchangeable, therefore, no one is to be blamed for their actions. Lastly, 4. Famous studies on biological factors of criminality (ex: the twin, family and adoption studies) maintained an intertwined relationship with social

The world we live in, we like to depend on scientific findings to reason our claims. This reaction paper will analyze the findings by Mathew Jones and will critique specific sections on "Genetic Research Summarized" and "The Resulting Concern". Now if we solely depend on genetics to defend or accuse individuals of being a criminal it will not be an efficient strategy in the criminal justice system. Furthermore, although American Criminal Justice upholds the notion of free will, it has been discriminatory towards a marginalized population of the United States itself. So being dependent on such findings there will be a higher probability of wrong people being trialed because then the idea of free will and genetically findings will be in conflict.

The objective of this study is to examine whether it is nature or nurture who plays the most vital role in a human’s behavior, specifically an individual’s criminal behavior. Criminal behavior is defined as an act or failure to act in a way that violates public law. Some believe that criminal behavior can be identified as early as conception, meaning that criminal behavior is because of your genes. While others believe that one’s upbringing and social learning environment directly contributes to the individual’s criminal behavior. This paper will provide the history on the ongoing debate of nature vs. nurture and answer the question of whether it is

The Biological and Psychological Trait Theories are theories that are used to try and explain deviance. Biological Trait Theory stems from the Italian School of Criminology (mid-nineteenth century), head by criminologist Cesare Lombroso. Lombroso argued that criminality was a biological trait found in humans. Lombroso’s idea of atavism connected an individual’s appearance and their biological inclination to criminal activity. The Psychological Trait Theory focused on the mental aspects of explaining criminal activity by evaluating their intelligence, personality, and learning behavior. There are three subunits of the Psychological Trait Theory, which are the psychodynamic theory, behavioral theory, and cognitive theory. Sigmund Freud developed the psychodynamic theory with his research of the conscious, preconscious, and unconscious functions of the mind. The behavioral theory is about developing human actions through learning experiences. It explains that crime is learned from life situations. People aren’t born with violent tendencies, rather it’s learned from life experiences. Three sources of this behavior are family, the media, and the environment. Cognitive theory focuses on how people perceive and mentally represent the world around them and solve problems. In the case of Jared Loughner, the psychological trait theory is the most applicable. With his diagnosis of being a paranoid schizophrenic, that connects him to both the psychodynamic perspective and

Also, individuals with autism have been shown to lack this ability, yet we do not attribute with a lack of moral judgement. The solution to understanding the differences between psychopaths, autistic individuals, and normally developed individuals, Nichols asserts, lies in finding a deficit present in psychopaths and not autistic individuals. Due to the non-rationalist explanation of lack of responsiveness to harm of others in psychopaths, the evidence points towards a Humean account. Thus, Nichols concludes that this deficiency is to be found in affective capacities.

These biologically pseudoscientific theories later played a role in German Nazi classification of racial, intelligence and behavioral typing as well. Again, the idea of individual rational choice as an element of criminal behavior was downplayed. Slightly less contrasting to the rational choice theory is the Psychobiological theory of human behavior. Originating with human genetic research in the 1960s, this theory stood for the proposition that the chemical makeup of a person—whether a result of naturally occurring DNA, genetic mutation caused by environmental contaminants, chemical changes through the addition or retraction of key nutrients, or chemical reactions to physical trauma—all contributed to the way the individual formulated thoughts, feeling and positive or criminal behavior. Here, the idea of the individual making rational “cost/benefit” choices was not discounted; rather, the thought process was considered as being influenced heavily by chemical and biological factors. If an individual’s chemical makeup were “out of balance”, that condition was deemed to cause undesirable or socially deviant behavior, contributing to criminal thought and action. Similar to the Psychobiological school of thought is the Psychological school of criminal causation. Two main undercurrents to this theory were biological causation and environmental causation, which were considered

Genetic influences on behavior can affect the criminal justice system. If a person is convicted of a crime with a mental disorder they have diminished responsibility for the crime and may not be held accountable because of their behavior and since this is the case should then genes affecting your behavior be treated the same way(“Genetics and Human Behaviour: The Ethical Context”).

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.

Researchers have also looked at criminal behavior from a genetic aspect. In fact, "behavioral genetic research has show that genes influence individual differences in a wide range of human behaviors -cognition, academic achievement, personality and temperament (including such traits as aggression and hostility), psychopathology, and even vocational interests and social attitudes" (Meadows, 2010, P.16). There may in fact be a connection between how an individual is wired and the behavior that results. This does not necessarily mean that some individuals are inevitably going to become a criminal. However, some individuals may simply have a greater tendency "to be more aggressive and thus less likely to control emotions absent some type of positive interventions" (Meadows, 2010, P. 16). Furthermore, genetic research looks at the heritability of certain disorders and specific genes that