Nature-Nurture: The Controversy Of A Serial Killer

Serial killers, we have all heard of them and most of us are petrified of them. They commit horrendous crimes that many people cannot even begin to wrap their head around. Unfortunately, for those of us who are afraid of them it is likely we have encountered at least one if not multiple in our lifetime. That last sentence really puts the “be nice to everyone” quote into perspective, doesn’t it? It is not known how many serial killers are actually walking around among us however most studies conducted reviled we may not want the answer. Chances are the number is higher than we would have thought and definitely higher than we had hoped. Although I highly doubt we will ever get an actual number. It is not likely that a survey will be given to see how many serial killers are actually walking free. Even if this hypothetical survey was given I do not think an actual serial killer is going to put a checkmark in the are you a serial killer box. Although if they did mark the box they would save a lot of lives. Answering yes to such a question would land them in a psych ward. We may not know how to identify a serial killer simply by looking them up and down but we do have theories that help predict why they choose to commit unspeakable crimes. One of these theories that will be discussed is the biosocial theory. Throughout the report, the biosocial theory of crime will be thoroughly explained and applied to this topic to better understand serial killers. Anyone who has some time to

Biological Theories have been related to crime for a long time. The Biological Theory talks about how one’s brain has an impact on committing crime or not. Dr. Jim Fallon, a neuroscientist from California talks about the biological influences in a brain. He believes that the combination of three major aspects can determine whether someone is psychopathic or not. Fallon states a combination of genes, damage to the person 's brain and the environment surrounding the individual will have the biggest impact on a person (Fallon, 2009). A real world example of the biological theory in full effect was the crimes of David Berkowitz, aka “Son of Sam. Berkowitz was accused and found guilty of killing over 6 people in New York City. After being convicted and locked up for a few years, studies had shown that Berkowitz had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Berkowitz also claimed that his neighbor’s dog, Sam had told him to do the killings as well (Biography). Comparing the Biological theory to my own life was pretty simple because there is a genetic factor that runs in my dad’s side and that is tempers. Tempers tend to flare fairly easy, and luckily so far there has no issues with the law, however like Fallon had said, with the right combination, anyone is possible to commit a crime at any time. I feel like in a biological theory, this would have a major impact on my life

This is one of the oldest arguments in the history of psychology. Each side indicates valid points, making it difficult to fully decide whether the motives of serial killers and criminals lie behind a subconscious intention routed from trauma over the course of their life, or if it is predisposed in their DNA. When nature and nurture outweigh other types of psychological trauma, a criminal can turn into a killer. These ideas can trigger psychopathic, sociopathic, and narcissistic behaviour (“Traumatic Experiences in Childhood and Psychopathy” 1). Analyzing these concepts help give probable reasoning for criminal actions.

What causes an individual to become a serial killer? Bio-psychologists believe that starting from birth the human mind is a “tabula rasa” or blank slate, and the individual learns behaviors and socio-cultural norms from individuals around them. This concept of nature versus nurture was based upon the idea that it is how you are brought up (nurture) that governs the psychologically significant aspects of child development and the concept of maturation applies only to the biological. The theory that explains the nature aspect of the nature versus nurture principle is called the attachment theory, which views the bond between mother and child as being an innate process that ensures survival. It is a biological need that has ensured the survival of many species including the human race; because of the need to protect and be protected humans as a species has been able to endure. It is also a psychological need to want to be cared for as well as care for others a study done by Harry Harlow (1950s). The concept of nurture focuses mainly on the effect that the environment has on the development of human beings and whether it is more important than nature. Several studies have been generated to try and settle the ongoing debate of nature versus nurture.

The nurture part of the debate is how the person was raised. The national center for crisis posted article “Serial killers: nature vs. nurture. How serial killer are born” going into detail about the crimes that have happened and if it was connected to their past and if they were abused at a young age. The serial killer may have been beat when they were young and they learned from their parents.

“Serial killers are human black holes; they scare us because they mirror us,” spoke Shirley Lynn Scott, known author and psychologist. This stands true throughout history, as most serial killers blend in with society. Serial killing is formally defined by the FBI as “a series of three or more killings, having common characteristics such as to suggest the reasonable possibility that the crimes were committed by the same actor or actors.” But what exactly drives someone to kill another human being? What plays as a more drastic motivator for their actions, nature or nurture?

Nature vs Nurture is something that has been researched for many years especially when it comes to finding the reason for someone committing a crime. When talking about nature, I am talking about how you are born. The genes that you are born with that make you who you are. When referring to nurture I am talking about how someone is raised. Such as the environment you live in and what is taught to you. As humans we cannot control our nature it is simply what you are born with. When you are born you have all your genes that will decide what you look like, how tall or short you will be, so why do we not believe that our behavioral tendencies, and personality attributes come from our genes too. Psychological theories such as the biological approach, and psychoanalysis have helped to show us how are genetics predetermine our behavior. Researchers have found multiple facts that support each side and for years no one has been able to decide which one influences us over the other one. I believe that our nature has a greater impact on us then our nurture especially when it comes to criminal actions.

Several serial killers have a definitive and common personality profile. Almost every major social, biological, psychological behavioural influence that has been seriously suggested as playing a role in causing crime has been thoroughly thought as potentially

While watching the news a report comes in that a serial killer has been brought down and arrested. Later, a group of news reporters come up and start  talking about how this serial killer got his infamous past, killing five people in gruesome ways. One of the news reporters stated that this man become a serial killer because he was mentally handicapped due to his genes when another reporter states that it was due to the abusive environment the serial killer was in during childhood. These two reporters got into such a huge argument that the channel had to go to a break to cool them down.  These two reporters believe that they are right and the other is wrong, but what if both of them were right at the same time. The Nature vs Nurture debate all started at 1869 by the man named Francis Galton, where he proclaim the question  was human action due to the environment or genes of a human being. This argument has always been black or white, that it could only be  Nurture or  Nature. While this was true during the time, further research has shown that it is not just one but both looking through all the evidence. Human action is affected both by the environment and genes because of epigenetics and  evolution.

This literature review focuses on serial killers from a psychological viewpoint while trying to answer the question, “Are serial killers born to kill or are they bred to kill?” Firstly, this review will define a serial killer and the different kinds of killers, then it will take a look at different case studies of children who fantasized about mass killing and identify similarities between the cases attempt to find a way to possibly prevent their fantasies from becoming reality. The debate of nature vs. nurture is also discussed as psychologists and researchers come to the conclusion that environmental factors play a bigger role in the developmental character of a person than genetics, but there is still no definite answer as to why some individuals grow up with the urge to murder other people and/or animals.

The question of whether or not man is predetermined at birth to lead a life of crime is a question that has been debated for decades. Are serial killers born with the lust for murder, or are their desires developed through years of abuse and torment? Many believe it is impossible for an innocent child to be born with the capability to commit a horrible act such as murder. But at the same time, how could we have corrupted society so much as to turn an innocent child into a homicidal maniac? Forensic psychologists have picked apart the minds of serial killers to find an answer as to what forces them to commit such perverse acts. Their ultimate goal is to learn how to catch a serial killer before

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

Creeping around the shadowy house, the predator found its prey waking to strange sounds. The victim lay facedown, with a sweating forehead pressed fearfully into the pillow, silently praying the noises would just go away. Suddenly the victim found himself straddled and pinned to the bed. He was unable to scream for help due to the pressure of the handle of a pick-axe against his throat, preventing any breath from escaping, much less any sound. The victim struggled beneath the weight of the assailant. The scant light from the sodium-arc street light outside cast a peculiar silhouette on the walls of the darkened room, projecting an image that looked oddly like that of a cowboy saddled upon

  In the news today there is an article about a high-school boy who brought guns to school and shot several students. The parents of the victims are suing various computer game companies saying that the violent games present shooting and killing people as pleasurable and fail to portray realistic consequences. A representative of one of the companies released a statement saying that this is another example of individuals seeking to elude responsibility that has become so common in our society. This case is not about software. What is on trial is the age-old debate between nature and nurture, which also lies at the center of Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment.

One of the first moral developments that we have to consider is the biological factor. This includes three implications for moral development that are derived from the research of this area. Genetic influences on personality traits, sex differences, and frontal lobe development and injury play a roll in the biological factor of moral development (Pollock pg. 80). It is said that genetics play a big roll in one’s ethical decision making ability. Although mental illnesses are not always genetic but can be argued that it is inherited. Either way, the mental illness definitely played a roll in Holmes decision to go through with the movie theater shooting.