Nature/Nurture Debate

The ongoing debate of Nature vs Nurture is one of the oldest philosophical issues. The nature theory argues that all genes, and hereditary factors, influences an individual in terms of their physical appearance to their personality characteristics (Cherry, 2017). Conversely, the nurture theory argues that all environmental variables impact who individuals are, including early childhood experiences, how individuals were raised, social relationships, and surrounding culture (Cherry, 2017). However, people are born neither “good” nor “bad”, but they are a product of their social and psychological traits, influenced by their upbringing and environment. Today, the validity of biological and psychological explanation of criminality is no longer

There are several theories that are used to explain why people commit crimes. These theories cover a range of scientific studies that still continue to be used in crime studies today. By using these theories and information gathered, an explanation of the criminal behaviours will be examined and explained relating to each supporting theories. The traditional explanations for crime are nature vs. nurture debate and the ideas relating to any possible biological reasons that turns someone into a criminal. Are some people really just ‘born bad?’ or are there other, social reasons for criminal behaviour? In this essay I will look at both sides of the argument, and offer an insight into the reasons behind such criminal behaviours. The Classical

This can be applied to the behaviors of criminals. According to Fishbein (1990, pg.37), “behavior [is] primarily attributed to inherited predispositions and genetic influences.” Nurture is the environmental influence that shape human behavior (Fishbein, 1990, pg.37). Human genetics and environmental factors contribute to the uniqueness to a person’s behavior. However, there are underlying qualities in a criminal’s historical background. Aspects of the nature and nurturing of a criminal behavior includes some problems with earlier biological explanations and some recent biological explanations which have overcome the weaknesses of

The origins of criminal activity have long been questioned. One of the explanations for criminal behavior that has been given is the theory of nature and nurture. It is believed that these two separate concepts are not as separated as people believe them to be. In fact, to prove the belief that the two are correlated, studies on twins have been conducted to prove the impact that nature and nurture has on behaviors and actions. These studies can also be used to prove the influences that nature and nurture have on criminal activity. Before explaining the impact of nature and nurture, however, an explanation on both must be given.

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.

The Nature and Nurture debate, one of the oldest debates in the history of psychology, questions whether or not criminal behaviour is a result of the nature of a person, meaning something that lies in their genes causing a person to act in a certain way, or nurture, the environment, therefore criminal behaviour as a result of a person’s life experiences (Sincero, 2012). This essay shall look in depth and answer to how the four areas of criminal behaviour, which are biological, sociological, psychological and environmental, as part of the nature and nurture debate, can explain criminality and deviance. This will be done by discussing a number of theories and experiments that have come to the surface over time. Researching the nature and nurture debate, it is shown that the debate continues to interest people today, mainly because of what is thought will be the outcome of these findings, which is preventing people turning to criminal behaviour by understanding people’s genetics, how they were born and avoid situations that lie in the environment to stop them interacting with criminal activities.

The nature side of the argument is basically what we are born with, our heredity. The main idea of this is that we are born with predetermined traits that may or may not create psychopathic tendencies in us. Dr. Richard Davidson of the University of Wisconsin at Madison published a report in 2000 that compared brain scans of five

In today's society, one will find that there are many different factors that go into the development of a criminal mind, and it is impossible to single out one particular cause of criminal behavior. Criminal behavior often stems from both biological and environmental factors. In many cases criminals share similar physical traits which the general population do not usually have. For example criminals have smaller brains than properly adjusted individuals. However biological reasons cannot solely be the cause of criminal behavior. Therefore, one must look to other sources as to how a criminal mind is developed. Social and environmental factors also are at fault for developing

Scientists and biologist have argued the Nature versus Nurture debate for decades. This debate argues the degree to which our genetics or environment, affects our behaviour and developmental stages. Nature is described as the genetic material that makes up an individual. Nurture can be described as the way in which the environment and experiences of an individual influence their behavior and development. The debate has centered on which is a greater factor for many years but current contemporary views accept and acknowledge the intricacy of the developmental procedure and recognize that “development is not the case of nature or nurture, but rather nature and nurture” (Howard & Walton 2015) It has been shown that genetic and environmental factors are in such continuous interactions that the emergence of particular structures and functions is the result of the dependent interaction of genetics and environment.(Lewkowicz, 2011.)

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.

There has always been a fascination with trying to determine what causes an individual to become a criminal? Of course a large part of that fascination has to do with the want to reduce crime, and to determine if there is a way to detect and prevent individuals from committing crime. Determining what causes criminality is still not perfectly clear and likewise, there is still debate as to whether crime is caused biologically, environmentally, or socially. Furthermore, the debate is directly correlated to the notion of 'nurture vs nature'. Over time many researchers have presented various theories pertaining to what causes criminal behavior. There are many theories that either support or oppose the concept of crime being biological rather

The biological theories are essential to the criminal justice profession so that they won't assume that a person's genetic characteristics cause a person to commit a crime. However, there are born criminals and “these types of criminals are the most dangerous, and can be identified through his or her stigmata or identifying characteristics” (Akers, Sellers, See, & Kieser, 2013, p. 10). Biological theories are the bases for severe criminal behavior mostly found among people who are born with an innate impulse to commit a

For years, the nature vs. nurture debate has always been a topic that biologists and psychologists cannot come to an agreement on. There have been many controversies that suggest that criminals are born and not made. Some biologists believe that it can be predicted whether or not a baby will grow up to have aggressive behavior by conducting research on them before they are born. In the early 20th century, biologists who supported the nature side of the debate were the same ones who believed traits such as learning disabilities, physical disabilities, and criminality were a drain on public resources . As a result, researchers believed they could ultimately control which human genes were passed on by using forced sterilization on women. However,

On November 15, 1959, four members of the prosperous Clutter family were murdered for seemingly no reason. This led many people to come up with their own ideas of what happened that night. This debate may be answered by psychology. One question that psychologists have is whether people are controlled more by their nature-genetics-or nurture-how they were raised (Mcleod 1). This debate can be used to discuss the motive of murderers, and argue for or against the death penalty in their case. Richard ¨Dick¨ Hickock and Perry Edward Smith, the ¨Clutter Killers,¨ are a perfect example of the nature vs. nurture debate. Perry was more influenced by nurture, while Dick was more influenced by nature.

For more than a century, researchers and psychologists, such as Sir Francis Galton, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud and many others, have been trying to understand how people are transformed by their environment. Researchers have mainly argued whether it is in fact our environment or rather genetics, our biological pre-wiring, which has influenced human behavior. This concept ultimately facilitated what is now known as the Nature versus Nurture debate. The Nature aspect states that human behavior is predetermined by our inherited genes or is the product of our innate behavior. The Nurture side of the disagreement postulates that human behavior stems from acquired attributes through individual learning and experiences. Correspondingly, the Object Relations Theory in psychoanalytic psychology supports the position that a person’s natural environment (i.e. family, peers, acquaintances, society) forms human development. The Object Relations theory stresses that it is the relationships between people, more specially family, often between mother and child, that crafts the human psyche.