Biology and crime
Before being assigned this paper and the reading of chapter six, I would have argued biology and crime were completely unrelated, and that crime was strictly environmental. It's the classic nature vs. nurture argument. From the text and reading these articles I have found that while environmental factors do contribute, genetics also plays an important role in prediction. Now, in my opinion, it is a complex combination of two strong factors.
The text describes four Biosocial Perspectives on criminology: biochemical, neuropsychological, genetic, and evolutionary. The text also describes two popular studies of twin behavior, sets of twins were studied, some were monozygotic (identical), while others were dizygotic (fraternal). The criminal activities of monozygotic twins were more similar in that of dizygotic twins. The first article I found supports genetic criminal behavior. Thomas Bouchard and his team have studied twins at the University of Minnesota since 1979. Many of the questions the Minnesota scientists ask focus on "nature vs. nurture." The article describes how psychologists examine pairs of twins closely to learn how much of their behavior is determined by genetics and how much by the environment. Identical twins reared apart at birth are the Minnesota scientists focus. "There's a very significant and powerful genetic effect on intelligence,' Bouchard said."Our data, and I'd like to leave some range to it, suggests that the amount of variation explained by genetic factors is somewhere between 50 and 70 percent, which is really a significant amount.' The Minnesota researchers found that most of the personality traits they measured "were influenced more by genes than by upbringing. Social potency, alienation, well-being, and harm avoidance were all found to be products of nature, not nurture. Even such qualities as respect for authority and adherence to high moral standards were found to be hereditary.' Bouchard I do...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document