Is Criminality In Bred Or Socially Learned?

The most logical first step would be to look at the idea of genetics and criminality. This is an area that has been, and still is, widely researched, often coming up with greatly varied results. Let us look at the actual biology of genetics, and the alleged identification of an abnormal gene, present in some criminals. Take, as an example, the much talked about 1993 study that identified an X chromosome mutation which is associated with mild retardation and aggressive, violent criminal behaviour concentrated in one large Dutch family. This apparent mutation causes complete deficiencies of the enzyme monoamine oxidase (maoa), which metabolises the neurotransmitters serotonin, dopamine, and noradrenaline. According to David Goldman, a geneticist at the National

On the other side of this genetics and crime argument is the suggestion that criminal behaviour is socially and culturally learned. Personality develops early in our life. This is why childhood, and our experience of childhood is very important in shaping the person we become. Dr Lonnie Athens, a criminology professor at Seton Hall University contributes what he believes are the reasons that certain individuals display criminal behaviour. He believes that violent people have came across certain things which undoubtedly contribute to their later behaviour. These include being violently assaulted themselves, sexually abused, threatened, tortured, or have simply witnessed someone else in that position (possibly in the family home, or family life). They have been taught and/or encouraged to commit violence and other criminal behaviours, and they carry on to do so. They realise that they can command ‘respect’ from other people by showing rage, and committing crime which they make others aware of. This mixture of feelings (of confusion and rage, for example) can cause the person to feel exposed and then they exhibit criminal behaviour to reduce these feelings. As is shown by this study, some people are more likely to have criminal behaviour that stems from societal/psychological factors, rather than purely biological. Research shows that juvenile criminality is more closely linked to social elements than genetic biology. These can include socio-economic group, family life, and school performance and attendance. In the nurture argument, we must look at the rate of juvenile crime, because if we must examine learned social behaviours, or the impact of cultural circumstances on the criminal youth. By the turn of the century, young people were experiencing financial independence, and it was at this time that concern was expressed about delinquency (Rook 1899; Booth 1902). The main representation of the youth was to see them as a problem, either being the source of the problem or being at risk (Griffin, 1993). Early theories of delinquency recognised the influence of the social and cultural environment also. Youth criminality as said to stem from poor parenting, and poor social conditions. Family dysfunction is one of the few factors that are almost invariably blamed for delinquency, including social control theories ( Hirschi, 1969), and social learning theories ( Bandura, 1977).

Some topics in this essay:
Mc Cord, Hall University, Classical School, , Charles Goring, California CAT, Criminal Manthat, Crime Insanity, Francis Galton’s, Alcohol Abuse, criminal behaviour, nature vs, vs nurture, nature vs nurture, positivist theory, vs nurture debate, ‘born bad’, idea crime, abnormal gene, criminal traits, lombroso’s theory, goring asserted criminal, exhibit criminal behaviour, born criminal,