Nature Vs. Nurture In Criminal Behavior

Introduction o The terms nature and nurture as a convenient catchphrase for the roles of heredity and environment in human development can be traced back to 13th Century France o So was the way we behave engrained in us before we were born? Or has it developed over time response to our experiences?

Many scientists think that people behave as they do according to genetic dispositions or even “animal instincts”; this is known as the “nature” theory of human behaviour. Even though scientists have known for decades that traits such as eye and hair colour are determined by specific genes encoded in each human cell, the nature theory takes things a step further, to say that most abstract traits such as intelligence, personality, aggression
Criminal behavior has always been a focus for psychologists due to the age old debate between nature and nurture. Is it the responsibility of an individual's genetic makeup that makes them a criminal or is it the environment in which they are raised that determines their outcome? Research has been conducted regarding this debate which has resulted in a conclusion that both genes and environment do play a role in the criminality of an individual. This evidence has been generated from a number of twin, family, and adoption studies as well as laboratory experiments. Furthermore, the research has stated that it is more often an interaction between genes and the environment that predicts criminal behavior. Having a genetic predisposition for criminal behavior does not determine the actions of an individual, but if they are exposed to the right environment, then their chances are greater for engaging in criminal or anti-social behavior. Therefore, this paper will examine the different functions that genetics and the environment play in the criminal behavior of individuals. The search for behavioural genes is the source of constant debate. Many fear that genetic arguments might be used as an excuse for criminal acts or to justify divorce. A recent nature nurture debate was caused by R
But while studies show they do more closely resemble each other then do non- twin brothers and sisters, they also show these same striking similarities when reared apart – as in similar studies done with identical twins. If environment didn’t play a part in determining an individuals traits and behaviour, then identical twins should, theoretically be exactly the same in all respects, even if reared apart. But a number of studies show that they are never exactly alike, even though they are remarkably similar in most respects now as a result of recent gene research, the notion of nurture has lost much of its power, though studies still show it has a strong influence. So was the way we behave engrained in us before we were born? Or has it developed over time in response to our experiences? Researchers on all sides of the nature verses nurture debate agree that the link between a gene and behaviorism not the same as cause and effect. While a gene may increase the likelihood that you’ll behave in a particular way, it doesn’t make people do things which means we still get to choose who we’ll be when we grow up. If hereditary was the sole factor responsible for determining our potential, then there would be little in trying to develop an individuals skills, for example in swimming, would depend on their inherited ability in this area.