Introduction
The debate over whether criminals are born or made has long been a central issue in criminology, psychology, and sociology. This question touches on fundamental aspects of human nature, free will, and the influence of environment on behaviour. Are individuals predestined to criminality through genetic or biological factors, or are they shaped by social, economic, and cultural circumstances? This essay aims to explore both perspectives, critically examining the biological and environmental arguments surrounding criminal behaviour. The discussion will first analyse the ‘born’ perspective, considering genetic and biological theories, before evaluating the ‘made’ viewpoint, which focuses on societal influences. Ultimately, this essay argues that while biological factors may create predispositions, environmental influences play a more significant role in shaping criminal behaviour. By synthesising evidence from academic sources, the essay seeks to provide a balanced understanding of this complex issue.
The ‘Born’ Perspective: Biological and Genetic Influences
Proponents of the idea that criminals are ‘born’ argue that biological and genetic factors play a significant role in determining criminal behaviour. Early theories, such as Cesare Lombroso’s concept of the ‘born criminal’ in the 19th century, suggested that certain physical traits—such as a sloping forehead or pronounced jaw—were indicative of criminal tendencies (Lombroso, 2006). While Lombroso’s ideas have been largely discredited for their lack of empirical grounding, modern research has shifted focus towards genetics and neuroscience to explore innate predispositions.
For instance, studies on twin and adoption cohorts have revealed a potential genetic basis for criminality. Monozygotic (identical) twins, who share nearly all their DNA, often show higher concordance rates for criminal behaviour compared to dizygotic (fraternal) twins (Raine, 2013). This suggests that genetics may contribute to tendencies such as impulsivity or aggression, which are risk factors for crime. Furthermore, research into specific genes, such as the MAOA gene—often referred to as the ‘warrior gene’—has linked low activity variants to increased aggression under certain conditions (Caspi et al., 2002). However, these studies are not without limitations; correlation does not imply causation, and the expression of such genes often depends on environmental triggers (Raine, 2013).
Additionally, neurological studies have identified structural and functional brain abnormalities in individuals exhibiting antisocial behaviour. For example, reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex, which governs impulse control and decision-making, has been observed in some violent offenders (Raine, 2013). While these findings provide compelling evidence for biological influences, they raise ethical questions about determinism and responsibility. If criminality is biologically ingrained, to what extent can individuals be held accountable? Thus, while the ‘born’ perspective offers valuable insights, it remains incomplete without considering external factors.
The ‘Made’ Perspective: Environmental and Social Influences
In contrast to biological determinism, the ‘made’ perspective asserts that criminal behaviour is largely a product of environmental and social conditions. This view aligns with sociological theories that highlight the role of upbringing, economic disadvantage, and cultural norms in shaping individuals’ actions. Indeed, it is often argued that crime is not an innate trait but a learned behaviour influenced by one’s surroundings.
One prominent theory in this domain is Edwin Sutherland’s differential association theory, which posits that individuals learn criminal behaviour through interactions with others, particularly within close social groups (Sutherland, 1947). For instance, a child growing up in a neighbourhood with high crime rates and limited opportunities may internalise criminal values as a means of survival or social acceptance. Supporting this, studies have shown that peer influence is a significant predictor of juvenile delinquency, with adolescents often engaging in criminal acts to gain approval from deviant peers (Akers, 1998).
Economic factors also play a critical role in the ‘made’ argument. Poverty, unemployment, and lack of access to education are strongly correlated with higher crime rates. According to a report by the UK government, individuals from deprived areas are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system (Ministry of Justice, 2019). This suggests that systemic inequalities may drive individuals towards crime, not as a biological inevitability, but as a response to limited legitimate opportunities. For example, someone facing chronic unemployment might turn to theft or drug dealing to meet basic needs—a choice shaped by circumstance rather than predisposition.
Moreover, family environment and parenting styles are pivotal in shaping behaviour. Children exposed to domestic violence, neglect, or inconsistent discipline are at higher risk of developing antisocial tendencies (Farrington, 2005). This highlights how early life experiences can ‘make’ a criminal, even in the absence of genetic predispositions. However, it is worth noting that not all individuals in adverse environments turn to crime, indicating the complexity of these influences and the role of individual agency.
Synthesis: An Interactionist Approach
While the ‘born’ and ‘made’ perspectives offer valuable insights, neither fully explains criminal behaviour in isolation. An interactionist approach, which considers the interplay between biology and environment, arguably provides a more comprehensive framework. This perspective is supported by the diathesis-stress model, which suggests that genetic vulnerabilities (diathesis) may lead to criminal behaviour only when triggered by environmental stressors (Caspi et al., 2002). For instance, an individual with a genetic predisposition to aggression may never exhibit criminal tendencies if raised in a supportive, stable environment. Conversely, adverse conditions might exacerbate innate risks.
This interactionist view is further evidenced by longitudinal studies, such as the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, which followed individuals over decades and found that both biological risk factors (e.g., low heart rate) and social factors (e.g., poor parenting) contributed to criminal outcomes (Farrington, 2005). Such findings underscore the importance of addressing both individual and societal factors in preventing crime. While biological research may inform risk assessments, social interventions—such as education, community support, and economic reforms—are often more practical and effective in reducing criminality.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the debate over whether criminals are born or made reveals a nuanced and multifaceted issue. The ‘born’ perspective, supported by genetic and neurological evidence, suggests that biological factors can predispose individuals to criminal behaviour. However, the ‘made’ viewpoint, grounded in sociological and environmental theories, demonstrates that external influences—such as poverty, peer groups, and family dynamics—often play a more decisive role in shaping criminality. An interactionist approach, which integrates both dimensions, offers the most balanced understanding, recognising that biology and environment are not mutually exclusive but interrelated. The implications of this debate are significant for policy and practice; while biological research may guide early identification of at-risk individuals, social reforms addressing systemic inequalities remain crucial. Ultimately, by acknowledging the complexity of criminal behaviour, society can develop more effective strategies to prevent crime and support rehabilitation, rather than relying on oversimplified assumptions about human nature.
References
- Akers, R. L. (1998) Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance. Northeastern University Press.
- Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., Taylor, A., and Poulton, R. (2002) Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297(5582), pp. 851-854.
- Farrington, D. P. (2005) Childhood origins of antisocial behavior. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 12(3), pp. 177-190.
- Lombroso, C. (2006) Criminal Man. Duke University Press.
- Ministry of Justice (2019) Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2018. UK Government.
- Raine, A. (2013) The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime. Pantheon Books.
- Sutherland, E. H. (1947) Principles of Criminology. J. B. Lippincott Company.
