Introduction
The question of whether criminals are born or made has long been a central debate in criminology, psychology, and sociology, with significant implications for how society addresses crime and rehabilitation. This essay explores the nature versus nurture argument in the context of criminal behaviour, examining biological, psychological, and environmental factors that may contribute to criminality. By critically evaluating key theories and evidence, the essay aims to assess whether criminal tendencies are innate (born) or shaped by external influences (made). The discussion will be structured into three main sections: the biological perspective, which considers genetic and physiological influences; the environmental perspective, focusing on social and cultural factors; and an integrated approach that combines both viewpoints. Ultimately, this essay argues that while biological predispositions may play a role, environmental factors often have a more substantial impact on the development of criminal behaviour, highlighting the complexity of this issue.
The Biological Perspective: Are Criminals Born?
The notion that criminal behaviour may be inherent has roots in early criminological theories, such as Cesare Lombroso’s concept of the “born criminal” in the late 19th century. Lombroso argued that certain physical traits, such as a sloping forehead or large jaw, indicated a predisposition to crime, suggesting a biological determinism (Lombroso, 1911). While his ideas have been largely discredited due to their lack of empirical support and ethical implications, modern research into genetics and neuroscience has revived interest in biological explanations.
Recent studies suggest that genetic factors may influence tendencies towards aggression or impulsivity, traits often associated with criminal behaviour. For instance, research on the MAOA gene, sometimes referred to as the “warrior gene,” has linked low activity in this gene to higher levels of violent behaviour in individuals exposed to childhood trauma (Caspi et al., 2002). This implies a genetic predisposition that, although not deterministic, may increase the likelihood of criminality under certain conditions. Furthermore, neuroscientific studies have identified abnormalities in brain structures, such as reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex, which is associated with impulse control and decision-making, in some offenders (Raine, 2013). These findings suggest that biological factors could indeed contribute to criminal tendencies.
However, the biological argument has limitations. It often fails to account for the vast majority of individuals with similar genetic or neurological traits who do not engage in crime. Moreover, such perspectives can risk stigmatising individuals based on factors beyond their control, raising ethical concerns about how this knowledge is applied in policy or legal contexts. Therefore, while biology may play a role, it is arguably insufficient on its own to explain criminal behaviour comprehensively.
The Environmental Perspective: Are Criminals Made?
In contrast to the biological view, the environmental perspective posits that criminal behaviour is primarily a product of external influences, such as upbringing, socio-economic conditions, and cultural norms. This viewpoint aligns with sociological theories, including social learning theory, which suggests individuals learn criminal behaviour through observing and imitating others (Bandura, 1977). For example, children growing up in communities with high crime rates or in households where criminal activity is normalised may internalise such behaviours as acceptable.
Socio-economic disadvantage is another critical factor often cited in this debate. Studies consistently show a correlation between poverty, lack of education, and higher crime rates. According to a report by the UK Ministry of Justice, individuals from deprived areas are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, suggesting that systemic inequalities may drive criminal behaviour (Ministry of Justice, 2013). Limited access to resources, combined with social exclusion, can create a sense of hopelessness or resentment, potentially leading individuals to resort to crime as a means of survival or status.
Additionally, the role of family environment cannot be overlooked. Research indicates that experiences of abuse, neglect, or inconsistent parenting during childhood are significant predictors of later criminality (Widom, 1989). Such adverse experiences may disrupt emotional development, impairing an individual’s ability to form healthy relationships or regulate emotions, which can manifest in antisocial or criminal acts. Thus, environmental factors often appear to exert a more direct and pervasive influence on criminal behaviour than biological predispositions alone, highlighting the importance of social context.
An Integrated Approach: Combining Nature and Nurture
Rather than viewing the “born or made” debate as a binary issue, an integrated approach that combines biological and environmental factors offers a more nuanced understanding of criminal behaviour. The diathesis-stress model, for instance, suggests that genetic vulnerabilities (diathesis) may only result in criminality when triggered by environmental stressors, such as trauma or poverty (Caspi et al., 2002). This perspective accounts for why not all individuals with genetic predispositions become criminals and why environmental factors often amplify underlying tendencies.
Epigenetics, the study of how environmental factors can influence gene expression, further supports this integrated view. Research shows that experiences such as chronic stress or maltreatment can alter gene functioning, potentially increasing the risk of antisocial behaviour (Rutter, 2006). This suggests a dynamic interaction between nature and nurture, where neither operates in isolation. Indeed, policies aimed at crime prevention appear more effective when they address both aspects—supporting at-risk individuals through early intervention programmes while also tackling systemic issues like inequality.
However, integrating these perspectives is not without challenges. Determining the exact balance between biological and environmental contributions remains difficult due to the complexity of human behaviour and the ethical constraints of conducting controlled studies. Furthermore, overemphasising one factor at the expense of the other risks oversimplifying the issue, potentially leading to ineffective or biased interventions. Nevertheless, a combined approach offers a more holistic framework for understanding criminality, reflecting the multifaceted nature of this phenomenon.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the debate over whether criminals are born or made reveals the intricate interplay between biological predispositions and environmental influences. While evidence suggests that genetic and neurological factors, such as the MAOA gene or brain abnormalities, may contribute to criminal tendencies, these alone are insufficient to determine behaviour. Environmental factors, including socio-economic disadvantage, family dynamics, and social learning, often play a more dominant role in shaping criminality, as they provide the context in which innate traits are expressed. An integrated approach, which considers both nature and nurture, arguably offers the most comprehensive explanation, as supported by models like diathesis-stress and emerging epigenetic research. The implications of this debate are significant for policy and practice, suggesting a need for multifaceted strategies that address both individual vulnerabilities and societal inequalities. Ultimately, while the question of “born or made” cannot be definitively answered, it is clear that environment frequently holds greater sway, underscoring the importance of social reform in crime prevention. By continuing to explore this complex issue, society can better tailor interventions to reduce criminal behaviour and support rehabilitation, ensuring a more just and equitable approach to addressing crime.
References
- Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., Taylor, A., & Poulton, R. (2002) Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297(5582), 851-854.
- Lombroso, C. (1911) Criminal Man. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
- Ministry of Justice (2013) Transforming Rehabilitation: A Summary of Evidence on Reducing Reoffending. London: Ministry of Justice.
- Raine, A. (2013) The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime. New York: Pantheon Books.
- Rutter, M. (2006) Genes and Behavior: Nature-Nurture Interplay Explained. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
- Widom, C. S. (1989) The cycle of violence. Science, 244(4901), 160-166.
Word Count: 1023 (including references)
