Genetic Epidemiology of Antisocial Behavior" Essay

Violence take multiple forms, many of which are covered in the nightly news. Murder, rape, familial abuse, bullying, workplace hostility, armed robbery—all of these are societal problems with far-reaching repercussions. There have long debates and discussions regarding whether nature or nurture influences individual violent behavior. People are concerned about what makes an individual to engage in violent behavior such murder or burglary among other types of crimes. They are also concerned about what makes people stop such behavior. However, there is no precise conception whether nature, nurture or both influence violence. Some people assume that, violent behavior results from individual’s life experiences or upbringing also known as nurture. Others feel that violent behavior is more complex and results from individual’s genetic character or nature. In other words, it is not clear whether violent behavior is inborn or occurs at some point in persons’ lives, but even it’s hard, emphasizing one and ignoring other influences is always an unwise way to go.

To begin with, criminal justice is a system that is designed to maintain social control, which means it is a necessary aspect of every society since “Laws are the conditions under which independent and isolated men united to form a society” (Beccaria, 1764: 16). In order words, crime control deals with the methods that are taken by a society to reduce its crime. As a matter of fact, there are various crime control strategies from community policing to risk assessments. In addition to the different tactics for controlling crime, there are several theories that not only attempt to explain the causes of crime, but also outline different ways to handle offenders; for example, deterrence, rehabilitation, and even retribution.

Department of Health and Human Services, 2016). However, as with any hypothesis for what shapes personality, antisocial PD is believed to be rooted in nature – genetics – and nurturing – environmental factors. A child could even be born with a gene linked to antisocial PD and it would not become prevalent unless a traumatic experience occurs in their life (Mayo Clinic, 2013).

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).

They were only concerned with one social group at the time. The continued research since they originally proposed the theory has developed, and finds crime and victimization to be the highest in communities with low social ties, lack of participation in volunteer opportunities, low levels of supervision or parenting, and high degrees of houses turning over. These findings are very consistent with the first findings that Shaw and McKay discovered when they conducted their study. Although there were some errors that were discussed years after they presented this theory, it has since been proven to still be an accurate theory. A lack of structure is not conducive to a positive environment for a child. Kids make poor choices, and will be more inclined to make poor choices if they do not have someone teaching them how to be a productive member of society. It is proven that young teenagers and early adults are more likely to commit crime, so if you combine that with a lack of structure, you are creating a situation that will not end well 9 times out of 10. If the child never had any reason to think crime was bad and that their actions would have both a victim and a consequence, if they are angry at parents or at the instability that was shown in

An estimated heritability rate of 40-50% was found in retrospective reports. Plus, a considerable amount of evidence of prospective reports showed 40-70% of heritability rate in genetic influence in boys and girls with symptoms of conduct disorder (Dick et al. 2011). Genes contribute to half of the variance in antisocial behavior, and the other half is distributed to the non-shared environment (J. C. Barnes and Bruce A. Jacobs,2013) Molecular genetics has already produced a plethora of insights into these links. For example, certain genetic polymorphisms have been associated with various antisocial behaviors such as ADHD, childhood conduct disorder, and adulthood violent

The crime control model is the “perspective that emphasizes the efficient arrest and conviction of criminal offenders” (Schmalleger, 2015, p. 22). A few of the underlying ideas of this model are keeping public order, preventing future crimes, and controlling unacceptable

Consistent observations that a small percentage of offenders are responsible for a preponderance of serious crime (Hamparin et al., 1978; Moffitt et al., 1989; Wolfgang, 1972) suggest that particular forces produce antisocial behavior in particular individuals. Further, much research shows that violent criminals have an early history of crime and aggression (Loeber and Dishion, 1983; Moffitt et al., 1989). The possibility that biological conditions may play a role in the development of antisocial and criminal behavior is accentuated by these reports and has spurred a search for biological markers in "vulnerable" subgroups (Mednick et al., 1987).

The principles of the biological theories allow us the understanding that all biological theories should evaluate common factors that relate to each other from one biological theory to the other (Schmalleger, 2012). The first parts of the biological theory assess the importance for the theories to make a connection between criminal behavior and the human brain and a person’s personality and the studies of neurology and neurochemistry. This meaning that a person’s ability to control antisocial behavior stems from their environment and the and family genes gives the person directly into right and wrong. There is also a standard that should evaluate the connection between different groups such a sex and racial makeup that that of criminal behavior as well as human instinctive behavior (Dretske, 2014). The link between the evolutionary development of a person criminal behavior or ability to

The causes of crime seem to be indefinite and ever changing. In the 19th century, slum poverty was blamed; in the 20th century, a childhood without love was blamed (Adams 152). In the era going into the new millennium, most experts and theorists have given up all hope in trying to pinpoint one single aspect that causes crime. Many experts believe some people are natural born criminals who are born with criminal mindsets, and this is unchangeable. However, criminals are not a product of heredity. They are a product of their environment and how they react to it. This may seem like a bogus assumption, but is undoubtedly true.

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.

There are clearly no simple genetic or hormonal factors that can explain the variation in aggressive in males and females. Studies of human males suggest that there is at most a small genetic component to aggression, but a greater one for personality traits associated with such behavior. The biological mechanisms translating the message in the genes into antisocial or criminal behavior are not known. Therefore, there is clearly no simple aggressive gene effect. Many genes are likely to be involved, and each may have a weak effect on aggressive behavior. A direct genetic effect on aggression, for example, may determine how quickly an individual responds to aggravation. Aggression may also be influenced indirectly; for example, a man's size and strength may affect the way he behaves and how others react to him. (Turner, 253)

20). This illustrates that not only is persons' genetics contributing to criminal behaviour 'but' also the environment in which the they are socialised can initiate deviancy.

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.

Is how aggressive an individual is determined only by his or her genes? Whether psychological and behavioral traits are purely determined by genetics, solely influenced by socialization, or a combination of both has been a highly debated topic within the field of psychology known as the “nature-nurture issue.” Today, although still disputed, a good number of psychologists and other scientists concur that genetics and the environment mutually influence and intermingle with one another (Myers, 2015). We can partially credit this fizzling-out of the nature-nurture debate to the discoveries made in twin studies. Twin studies are used to help delineate the genetic components of behavior and the socially and culturally influenced components (Myers, 2015). This type of study enables researchers to examine the extent to which genetics and environment have an effect on the development of traits and behavior. For example, in lecture, we learned that a common and natural experiment used in twin studies is to examine a set of twins who grew up in the same household and a set twins who grew up in separate households (K.W. Brown, personal communication, August 29, 2017).