Introduction
The question of whether criminals are born or made has long been a central debate in criminology, psychology, and sociology. This essay, written as part of an Extended Project Qualification (EPQ), seeks to explore the complex interplay between biological predispositions and environmental influences in shaping criminal behaviour. By examining key theories and evidence from academic literature, this work aims to provide a balanced analysis of the ‘nature versus nurture’ argument. The essay will first consider biological perspectives, focusing on genetic and neurological factors that may predispose individuals to criminality. It will then explore environmental influences, such as socio-economic conditions and family dynamics, which arguably play a significant role in the development of criminal behaviour. Finally, the conclusion will synthesise these perspectives, reflecting on their implications for understanding and addressing crime. While this analysis acknowledges the complexity of the issue and the limitations of current research, it strives to offer a logical and evidence-based discussion suitable for an academic audience.
Biological Factors: The Case for Nature
One significant strand of thought in criminology suggests that criminal behaviour may have a biological basis, implying that some individuals are ‘born’ with tendencies towards criminality. Early theories, such as those proposed by Cesare Lombroso in the 19th century, argued that criminals could be identified by physical traits, though these ideas have largely been discredited due to their lack of empirical support and inherent biases (Hollin, 2013). More contemporary research, however, has focused on genetic and neurological factors with greater scientific rigour. For instance, studies on twins and adopted children have provided evidence of a genetic component to criminal behaviour. Monozygotic twins, who share nearly identical DNA, have been shown to exhibit greater concordance in criminal tendencies compared to dizygotic twins, suggesting a hereditary influence (Raine, 2013). While these studies are not without methodological limitations—such as small sample sizes—they indicate that biology may play a role in predisposing individuals to certain behaviours.
Furthermore, neurological research has identified differences in brain structure and function among individuals who exhibit criminal tendencies. Abnormalities in the prefrontal cortex, which governs impulse control and decision-making, have been linked to higher rates of aggression and antisocial behaviour (Raine, 2013). For example, individuals with reduced activity in this brain region may struggle to regulate emotions, potentially leading to impulsive or violent actions. However, it is critical to note that these findings do not imply inevitability; rather, they highlight a possible predisposition that interacts with other factors. Indeed, biological explanations alone cannot fully account for the complexity of criminal behaviour, as they often fail to consider the broader context in which individuals live.
Environmental Influences: The Case for Nurture
In contrast to biological determinism, many criminologists and sociologists argue that criminal behaviour is primarily a product of environmental factors, suggesting that criminals are ‘made’ through their circumstances. Socio-economic conditions are frequently cited as a key driver of crime. Research indicates that individuals from deprived backgrounds, where access to education and employment opportunities is limited, are more likely to engage in criminal activities (Farrington, 2007). This is often linked to structural inequalities, such as poverty and discrimination, which can create a sense of frustration and alienation. For instance, young people in economically disadvantaged areas may turn to crime as a means of economic survival or to gain status within their peer groups, as suggested by strain theory (Merton, 1938, cited in Farrington, 2007). While this perspective is widely supported, it must be acknowledged that not all individuals in such environments become criminals, indicating the presence of other protective factors or personal traits.
Family dynamics and upbringing also play a crucial role in shaping behaviour. Children raised in environments characterised by neglect, abuse, or inconsistent discipline are more likely to develop antisocial tendencies, as they may lack the emotional support and role models necessary for prosocial development (Siegel, 2011). Parental criminality, moreover, can normalise deviant behaviour, perpetuating a cycle of crime across generations. A longitudinal study by Farrington (2007) found that children with criminal parents were significantly more likely to offend themselves, though whether this reflects learned behaviour or shared environmental stressors remains debated. Thus, while nurture-based arguments are compelling, they too are not definitive, as they often struggle to isolate specific causal factors amidst a web of interrelated influences.
Interactionist Perspectives: A Middle Ground
Recognising the limitations of viewing criminality as solely a product of nature or nurture, many contemporary scholars advocate for an interactionist approach, which considers how biological and environmental factors intersect. For example, the biosocial theory posits that genetic predispositions to aggression or impulsivity may only manifest as criminal behaviour in the presence of adverse environmental triggers, such as poverty or trauma (Raine, 2013). This perspective is supported by epigenetic research, which demonstrates that environmental conditions can influence gene expression, potentially amplifying or suppressing traits associated with criminality (Hollin, 2013). While this field is still emerging, it offers a promising framework for reconciling the born-versus-made debate.
Moreover, the interactionist view underscores the importance of individual agency within structural constraints. Not all individuals with similar biological or environmental risk factors engage in crime, suggesting that personal choices and resilience play a role. For instance, protective factors such as strong community ties or access to mentorship can mitigate the impact of both genetic and social risks (Siegel, 2011). This complexity poses challenges for policymakers, as it implies that neither purely preventive nor punitive approaches can fully address criminality. Instead, a nuanced understanding of how nature and nurture interact is essential for designing effective interventions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the question of whether criminals are born or made remains a multifaceted issue that defies a simplistic answer. Biological perspectives highlight the role of genetic and neurological factors in predisposing individuals to criminal behaviour, as evidenced by twin studies and brain imaging research. Conversely, environmental explanations emphasise the impact of socio-economic deprivation and family influences, supported by longitudinal data linking disadvantage to crime. However, an interactionist approach arguably provides the most comprehensive framework, recognising that nature and nurture are not mutually exclusive but rather intertwined in shaping behaviour. This synthesis has significant implications for both academic research and policy, suggesting the need for interdisciplinary studies and holistic interventions that address individual, familial, and societal factors. While this essay has explored key arguments, it must acknowledge the limitations of current knowledge—particularly the difficulty of isolating causality in such a complex field. Future research should therefore focus on longitudinal and epigenetic studies to further illuminate the intricate dynamics of criminality. Ultimately, understanding whether criminals are born or made is not merely an academic exercise but a critical step towards fostering a more just and equitable society.
References
- Farrington, D. P. (2007) Developmental Criminology and the Crime Drop. Cambridge University Press.
- Hollin, C. R. (2013) Psychology and Crime: An Introduction to Criminological Psychology. Routledge.
- Raine, A. (2013) The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime. Penguin Books.
- Siegel, L. J. (2011) Criminology: The Core. Cengage Learning.
