Neurobiology Of Evil - Nature And Nurture

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

Studies of the human brain have been done multiple times and it has been concluded that “those who had been convicted of murder with aggression or antisocial disorders showed distinct brain activity as compared to those who were normal. Those brain scans showed a relationship between the orbital frontal cortex, the anterior cingulated cortex, and the amygdale, which plays a large part in controlling negative and violent emotions” (Coleman et al. 2). Mental illness is something very serious that, if diagnosed at a relatively young age can be controlled by medication and counseling. The problem lies within those who either don’t receive medical treatment or don’t follow doctor’s orders when it comes to treatment regiments. For example, a schizoid patient following a doctor’s order may very well be an upstanding member of society. But when medication is no longer being taken, that person will be more likely to give into the urges given by the voices inside their head. Many serial killers are also considered to be psychopaths: a psychopathy is “a neurodevelopmental disorder, one which a combination of genetic and environmental factors, such as neglect or poor bonding with parents, lead to deficits in the brain” (Anderssen and Mcllroy 1). Psychopaths are unable to feel empathy, kindness, and in some cases they even struggle with feeling love. Psychopaths experience these symptoms from a young age and are often very violent as children. The corpus callosum is frequently different structure wise, it is part in the brain that connects the left and right side while controlling someone’s ability to control other people. Psychologists and Psychiatrists “generally agree that factors outside a killer’s control, such as their upbringing and hereditary background, can have a defining effect on the way they behave as adults”

For a long period in history, psychopaths were believed to be possessed by demons and spirits and were routinely exercised to expel such creatures. As science and clinical experiences progressed, people have learned that the brain is wired in multiple different ways, some in which lead to the negative “disorder” dubbed psychopathy (Telles-Correia and Sampaio). Yet, the popular theory that ‘psychopathy is purely genetic is not entirely true. Both genetic and environmental aspects cause psychopathy, and go hand-in-hand in some cases.

Biological Theories are vastly growing with fascinating research. The main stump is concretely linking it to criminal behavior, because some theories are more relatable than others. Theories involving temperament and hormones give real life biological explanations, while others like extrovert and introvert behaviors, and neuroticism explain a weaker link to crime. However, all theories are valuable in exploring the root of crime.

There are many different ways that behavior can be explained, especially on the terms of nature vs. nurture. Aggression is a behavior that has been extensively analyzed in a complex manner and the causes of it can be explained many different ways. Aggression can be defined as hostile or destructive behavior that can cause injury or destructive outlook especially when caused by frustration. Nature can be defined as aspects of behavior that have been inherited or are genetic, while nurture is all aspects that are influenced by environmental characteristics and experience. Many factors, both biological and environmental, influence and promote aggressive behaviors, such as hormones and neurotransmitters, genetics, family life, past experiences, and hobbies.

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 debate over nature vs. nurture has been researched and studied today and as well in the past amongst many different scholars with different views. Nature defines the characteristics that we are born with, like our genetics, stable personality traits, and physical conditions. While on the other hand, nurture is when our environment determines who a person is and who they will become; the experiences that mold and change us throughout our lives are all examples of nurture. Today, within many types of research it has been proven that a person is not born as a killer, instead, they are nurtured into one considering the way their parents raise them, what they are taught at school, and their culture. (Examination of the Psychology of Serial Killers,

Biological explanations propose that the criminal behavior is the result of the individual’s defective biological makeup. Neurological abnormalities have been the central focus in studies examining criminal behavior. In one particular study (Raine et al., (2002) – Brain Dysfunction), the brains of convicted murderers, who all pled not guilty by reason of insanity, were compared to those of a control group. The conclusive results showed that the murderers had “reduced activity in areas of the brain such as the prefrontal cortex, thalamus, hippocampus and the left side of the amygdala, which are all linked to violent behaviour.” (Raine, (2002). This study supports a deterministic approach and positions a criminal as being born this way, thus making it natural for him to commit the crime.

This data provides support for the nature theory, backing up the idea that emotional disorders are strictly from birth. In addition, though the majority of serial killers lack education, they still possess wit and cleverness, making them naturally candidates for violent behavior. Even though they lack schooling, a major component of nurture, serial killers tend to naturally have components that make them ideal for being a killer. Also, twins have strikingly similar behaviors, even when reared apart. Identical twins share 100% of their DNA and fraternal twins share 50% of their DNA (Powell), and are created in the same womb simultaneously, providing optimal conditions for determining if DNA is the ultimate factor in personality development.

More recently, biological aspects of criminal behavior have been investi­gated by numerous behavioral scientists employing

Until recently, it was very difficult to determine is a child 's biology could affect their behavior. This is an example that brings the argument of nature vs. nurture forward. Certain behaviors can be difficult to determine whether it is a learned response or a biological response, but recent studies of twins and adopted children have shown " that antisocial behavior is 40 to 50 percent heritable" (Kaiser, 2012). What is interesting about such studies is how a child 's challenging behavior can develop by both biology and environment. This means that even though a child may be genetically predisposition to a certain problem behavior, with the right environment the behavior can

The debate on nature vs. nurture is one that has been around for quite some time. For years, researchers and scholars have resurrected this issue time and time again, taking different sides and speculating that one or other is the primary cause behind human behavior. Yet as with all great debates , the answers are never quite clear in the end (Crandell, Crandell, & Vander Zanden, 2009). While one side would argue that genetics is the primary cause of all things human, others would vehemently argue that the environment plays a significant role in human development and behavior (Schultz & Schultz, 2009). As violence has become more prominent in the United States in recent years, it seems that the issue of nature vs. nurture has once again reappeared, but now the focus has shifted to understanding what is the root cause of violence—genetics or the environment (Crandell, Crandell, & Vander Zanden, 2009). This ideology is addressed by two similar yet opposing views in the texts: The Anatomy of Violence, and From Neurons to Neighborhoods.

There are theories in criminology that suggest a person’s biological make up can be used to predict antisocial behavior and future crime (7). Little evidence is found determining if a sequence of DNA is responsible for violent actions. The suggested experiment in the scenario is questionable. Using data sampling from incarcerated youth to find a 75% accuracy with procedures of brain scans, DNA testing, and blood analysis doesn’t correlate. The reason being that it excludes other factors that may be responsible for their history of violence. To use a sketchy method to predict antisocial behavior hinders children’s social growth; on top of that it’s unethical and unfair to predict and label antisocial behavior. While individuals may exhibit antisocial

Biological theories sought to determine a biological defect inside individuals that caused a predisposition towards criminal behaviour. For instance, the notion that antisocial and aggressive behaviour is influenced by genetics is strongly supported through research based on twin studies, adoption studies, twins reared apart and molecular

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