Introduction
The debate over whether criminals are born or made has long intrigued scholars, policymakers, and society at large. This essay examines this question from the perspective of English speech and criminological discourse, exploring the interplay between biological predispositions and environmental influences in shaping criminal behaviour. The central purpose is to critically assess the nature versus nurture argument, considering key theories and empirical evidence. The discussion will be structured into two main sections: the biological perspective, which argues for inherent traits as drivers of criminality, and the environmental perspective, which emphasises social and cultural factors. Ultimately, this essay aims to evaluate these competing views and highlight their implications for understanding criminal behaviour within an academic framework.
Biological Perspectives: Born to Commit Crime?
The notion that criminals are ‘born’ suggests that genetic or biological factors predispose individuals to criminal behaviour. Early theories, such as Cesare Lombroso’s concept of the ‘born criminal’ in the late 19th century, posited that physical characteristics could indicate criminal tendencies (Lombroso, 1876, cited in Rafter, 2008). While such deterministic views are now largely discredited, modern research into genetics and neuroscience offers more nuanced insights. For instance, studies on twin and adoption cohorts have shown that genetic factors may contribute to aggressive or antisocial behaviour, with heritability estimates for such traits ranging from 40-60% (Rhee and Waldman, 2002). This suggests a potential biological basis for criminality, though it is not deterministic.
Moreover, neuroscientific research has identified abnormalities in brain structures, such as the amygdala, which regulates emotion and impulse control, as possible factors in criminal behaviour (Blair, 2013). However, these findings come with limitations; biological factors alone cannot predict criminality, as they often interact with external influences. This raises questions about the extent to which individuals are ‘born’ with criminal tendencies, indicating that while biology plays a role, it is not the sole determinant.
Environmental Influences: Made by Society?
In contrast, the argument that criminals are ‘made’ focuses on environmental and social factors. Sociological theories, such as Edwin Sutherland’s differential association theory, argue that criminal behaviour is learned through interactions with others, particularly in environments where crime is normalised (Sutherland, 1947). For example, individuals raised in deprived communities with high crime rates may adopt criminal behaviour as a means of survival or social acceptance. Indeed, UK government statistics highlight that socioeconomic disadvantage is a significant predictor of criminal involvement, with higher rates of offending among individuals from low-income backgrounds (Ministry of Justice, 2019).
Furthermore, family dynamics, such as neglect or exposure to domestic violence, can profoundly impact behavioural outcomes. Research suggests that children who experience adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are more likely to engage in criminal activity later in life (Bellis et al., 2014). Thus, environmental factors arguably play a critical role in ‘making’ criminals, challenging the notion of innate criminality and emphasising the importance of societal intervention.
Conclusion
In summary, the question of whether criminals are born or made remains complex, with compelling arguments on both sides. Biological perspectives highlight genetic and neurological influences that may predispose individuals to criminal behaviour, yet these factors are not conclusive without environmental triggers. Conversely, social and cultural influences, such as poverty and adverse upbringing, demonstrate how external conditions can shape criminal tendencies. This interplay suggests that neither nature nor nurture alone can fully explain criminality; rather, a synthesis of both is necessary. The implications of this debate are significant for policy, as understanding the roots of crime can inform prevention strategies—whether through biological screening or social reform. Ultimately, this nuanced perspective underscores the need for a balanced approach in addressing criminal behaviour, acknowledging both inherent traits and societal influences.
References
- Bellis, M. A., Lowey, H., Leckenby, N., Hughes, K., and Harrison, D. (2014) Adverse childhood experiences: Retrospective study to determine their impact on adult health behaviours and health outcomes in a UK population. Journal of Public Health, 36(1), pp. 81-91.
- Blair, R. J. R. (2013) The neurobiology of psychopathic traits in youths. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(11), pp. 786-799.
- Ministry of Justice (2019) Criminal Justice System Statistics Quarterly: December 2019. UK Government.
- Rafter, N. (2008) The Criminal Brain: Understanding Biological Theories of Crime. New York: NYU Press.
- Rhee, S. H., and Waldman, I. D. (2002) Genetic and ambientais influences on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies. Psychological Bulletin, 128(3), pp. 490-529.
- Sutherland, E. H. (1947) Principles of Criminology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
[Word Count: 525 including references]
