with reference to psychological theory discuss whether serial killers are born or made
With reference to psychological theory, discuss whether criminals are born or made.
Over the years, much debate has surrounded the question of Criminality, why it occurs and how it can be controlled. Can a person simply be born evil or are they merely a product of circumstance? A wealth of research has been done on the subject of Nature versus Nurture and a number of esteemed theories have been put forward. This essay will address the various arguments in favour of each theory, evaluating both their merits and limitations, starting with the ideas of Physiognomy as expressed by Lombroso, through to the Biological theories of Hans Eysenck and the Psycho-Dynamic approach of Freud. Thorough consideration will also be given to the Behaviourist/Cognitive perspectives of Watson and Bandura as well as the Humanistic approach of Maslow, Rogers et al. It is also vital to explore other external factors that might influence the emergence of criminal behaviour such as the family background of the individual with likely indicators being examples of neglect, abuse, familial dysfunction and parenting issues. Attention here will be drawn to the work of Bowlby his theories on childhood attachment and development. The introduction of case studies will serve to illustrate how accurate some of the theories mentioned are when related to specific individual criminals. Finally after considering all of the assembled evidence, conclusions will be drawn as to which argument holds the greater sense of validity and whether nature or nurture ultimately holds the key to our destiny.
In 1876 an Italian Army Doctor by the name of Cesare Lombroso published a book called L’Uomo Delinquente or Criminal Man. Heavily influenced by Darwin’s theory of evolution, he put forward the theory that criminals were a sort of sub-species of the human race, less evolved than their fellow man. They were easily distinguishable by their primitive physical characteristics such as a narrow sloping brow, prominent
Over the years, much debate has surrounded the question of Criminality, why it occurs and how it can be controlled. Can a person simply be born evil or are they merely a product of circumstance? A wealth of research has been done on the subject of Nature versus Nurture and a number of esteemed theories have been put forward. This essay will address the various arguments in favour of each theory, evaluating both their merits and limitations, starting with the ideas of Physiognomy as expressed by Lombroso, through to the Biological theories of Hans Eysenck and the Psycho-Dynamic approach of Freud. Thorough consideration will also be given to the Behaviourist/Cognitive perspectives of Watson and Bandura as well as the Humanistic approach of Maslow, Rogers et al. It is also vital to explore other external factors that might influence the emergence of criminal behaviour such as the family background of the individual with likely indicators being examples of neglect, abuse, familial dysfunction and parenting issues. Attention here will be drawn to the work of Bowlby his theories on childhood attachment and development. The introduction of case studies will serve to illustrate how accurate some of the theories mentioned are when related to specific individual criminals. Finally after considering all of the assembled evidence, conclusions will be drawn as to which argument holds the greater sense of validity and whether nature or nurture ultimately holds the key to our destiny.
In 1876 an Italian Army Doctor by the name of Cesare Lombroso published a book called L’Uomo Delinquente or Criminal Man. Heavily influenced by Darwin’s theory of evolution, he put forward the theory that criminals were a sort of sub-species of the human race, less evolved than their fellow man. They were easily distinguishable by their primitive physical characteristics such as a narrow sloping brow, prominent