Introduction
The age-old debate in criminal psychology revolves around whether criminal behaviour is an inherent trait—suggesting criminals are ‘born’—or a product of environmental influences, implying they are ‘made’. This nature versus nurture question has profound implications for understanding crime causation, prevention strategies, and rehabilitation efforts. As a student studying criminal psychology, I find this topic particularly fascinating because it bridges biological sciences with social theories, challenging simplistic explanations of deviance. This essay will explore both sides of the argument by citing key theories, beginning with biological perspectives that support the ‘born’ hypothesis, followed by environmental theories favouring the ‘made’ viewpoint, and concluding with interactionist approaches that integrate the two. Through a critical analysis of evidence from peer-reviewed sources and academic texts, I aim to evaluate the strengths and limitations of these theories. Ultimately, the discussion will highlight that while neither perspective fully explains criminality, an integrated view offers the most comprehensive understanding. This approach aligns with contemporary criminal psychology, which increasingly recognises the interplay between genetics and environment (Raine, 2013).
Biological Theories Supporting ‘Born’ Criminals
Biological theories posit that criminal behaviour stems from innate physiological or genetic factors, essentially arguing that some individuals are predisposed to crime from birth. One foundational theory in this domain is Cesare Lombroso’s concept of the ‘born criminal’, introduced in his seminal work L’Uomo Delinquente (1876). Lombroso, often regarded as the father of criminology, proposed that criminals represent an atavistic throwback to earlier evolutionary stages, identifiable through physical anomalies such as asymmetrical faces, large jaws, or excessive body hair. He based this on autopsies and measurements of Italian prisoners, suggesting these traits were hereditary and linked to criminal instincts. Although Lombroso’s ideas have been largely discredited for their eugenic undertones and lack of empirical rigour—indeed, modern critiques highlight their racist implications—they laid the groundwork for biological criminology (Rafter, 2008).
Building on this, contemporary genetic research provides more robust evidence for the ‘born’ argument. Twin and adoption studies, for instance, demonstrate a heritable component to antisocial behaviour. A landmark study by Rhee and Waldman (2002) conducted a meta-analysis of 51 twin and adoption studies, finding that genetic factors account for approximately 40-50% of the variance in antisocial behaviour. This suggests that identical twins, who share 100% of their DNA, are more likely to both exhibit criminal tendencies compared to fraternal twins, even when raised apart. Such findings imply a biological predisposition, though they do not negate environmental influences entirely.
Furthermore, neurobiological theories emphasize brain structure and function as predictors of criminality. Adrian Raine’s work (2013) in The Anatomy of Violence argues that abnormalities in the prefrontal cortex—responsible for impulse control and decision-making—can predispose individuals to violent crime. For example, Raine cites neuroimaging studies showing reduced prefrontal grey matter in individuals with antisocial personality disorder, a condition often linked to criminal behaviour. This is supported by evidence from functional MRI scans, which reveal impaired emotional regulation in violent offenders (Blair, 2013). However, a limitation here is that these biological markers are correlational rather than causal; brain differences could result from environmental factors like childhood trauma, rather than being purely innate.
From a student perspective in criminal psychology, these theories are compelling because they offer measurable, scientific explanations for crime, potentially informing policies like early genetic screening. Yet, they risk oversimplification, ignoring how societal contexts might exacerbate biological vulnerabilities. Arguably, while genetics provide a foundation, they do not determine destiny, as evidenced by the fact that not all individuals with genetic risk factors become criminals (Moffitt, 2005).
Environmental Theories Supporting ‘Made’ Criminals
In contrast to biological determinism, environmental theories assert that criminal behaviour is learned or shaped by social, economic, and cultural factors, thus supporting the idea that criminals are ‘made’ by their surroundings. A key proponent is Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory (1977), which posits that individuals acquire behaviours through observation and imitation of role models, reinforced by rewards or punishments. In the context of crime, children exposed to aggressive models—such as abusive parents or gang members—may internalise these behaviours, leading to delinquent acts. Bandura’s famous Bobo doll experiments demonstrated how children mimicked adult aggression, providing empirical support for vicarious learning. Applied to criminal psychology, this theory explains phenomena like intergenerational crime cycles in deprived communities, where poverty and limited opportunities reinforce deviant norms (Akers, 1998).
Another influential framework is Edwin Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory (1939), which argues that criminal behaviour is learned through intimate interactions with others who hold favourable attitudes towards law-breaking. Sutherland emphasized that if an individual’s associations lean towards criminal definitions—such as viewing theft as justifiable in certain contexts—they are more likely to engage in crime. This is particularly relevant in urban gang cultures, where peer pressure and group dynamics ‘make’ individuals criminals. Empirical studies, such as those by Warr (2002), corroborate this by showing that delinquent peer associations strongly predict adolescent offending, often outweighing family influences.
Strain Theory, developed by Robert Merton (1938), further illustrates how societal structures can ‘make’ criminals. Merton suggested that crime arises from the disjunction between culturally valued goals (e.g., wealth and success) and the legitimate means to achieve them. In strained circumstances, such as economic inequality, individuals may resort to innovative or deviant adaptations, like drug dealing, to attain these goals. This theory is supported by UK government reports on social deprivation; for instance, the Office for National Statistics (ONS, 2020) highlights higher crime rates in economically disadvantaged areas, linking them to limited educational and employment opportunities.
As someone studying this field, I appreciate how environmental theories underscore the role of policy interventions, such as community programs to reduce strain or disrupt negative associations. However, a critical limitation is their tendency to overlook individual agency; not everyone in adverse environments becomes criminal, suggesting that personal resilience or biological factors might mediate outcomes (Agnew, 2006). Therefore, while these theories provide a strong case for the ‘made’ perspective, they benefit from integration with biological insights to address such gaps.
Interactionist Perspectives: Integrating Nature and Nurture
Recognising the shortcomings of purely biological or environmental explanations, interactionist or biosocial theories propose that criminality emerges from the interplay between genetic predispositions and environmental triggers. Terrie Moffitt’s (1993) Dual Taxonomy Theory exemplifies this, distinguishing between life-course-persistent offenders, who exhibit early biological risks (e.g., neuropsychological deficits) exacerbated by poor environments, and adolescence-limited offenders, whose delinquency is primarily situational and peer-driven. Moffitt’s longitudinal studies in New Zealand showed that persistent offenders often have genetic vulnerabilities, like low MAOA enzyme activity (the ‘warrior gene’), which interact with childhood maltreatment to heighten aggression risks (Caspi et al., 2002).
The MAOA gene study by Caspi and colleagues (2002) is particularly illustrative: it found that individuals with the low-activity MAOA variant were significantly more likely to develop antisocial behaviour, but only if they experienced severe childhood abuse. This gene-environment interaction underscores that neither nature nor nurture operates in isolation; rather, they amplify each other. In the UK context, this has implications for interventions, as evidenced by reports from the Ministry of Justice (2018), which advocate for holistic approaches combining biological assessments with social support.
Critically evaluating these perspectives, biosocial theories offer a more nuanced understanding, addressing the limitations of earlier models. For example, they explain why identical twins raised in different environments may diverge in criminality, as environmental factors modulate genetic expression (Raine, 2013). However, challenges remain, such as ethical concerns over genetic labelling and the need for more diverse, cross-cultural research to avoid Western biases (Moffitt, 2005). From my viewpoint as a criminal psychology student, this integrated approach is the most promising, as it aligns with multidisciplinary evidence and promotes comprehensive crime prevention strategies.
Conclusion
In summary, the debate on whether criminals are born or made reveals a complex interplay of factors. Biological theories, such as Lombroso’s atavism and genetic studies, provide evidence for innate predispositions, yet they often lack consideration of environmental contexts. Conversely, environmental theories like Social Learning and Strain Theory highlight how societal influences shape behaviour, though they may undervalue biological underpinnings. Interactionist perspectives, including Moffitt’s taxonomy and gene-environment interactions, offer a balanced synthesis, suggesting that criminality is neither solely innate nor entirely learned but a product of their dynamic interaction.
The implications are significant for criminal justice: embracing biosocial models could lead to targeted interventions, such as early childhood support for at-risk individuals, potentially reducing recidivism. However, as a student, I recognise the need for ongoing research to refine these theories, ensuring they inform ethical and effective policies. Ultimately, while no single theory fully resolves the debate, the evidence leans towards an integrated view, reminding us that understanding crime requires looking beyond simplistic binaries.
References
- Agnew, R. (2006) Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Oxford University Press.
- Akers, R. L. (1998) Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Northeastern University Press.
- Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
- Blair, R. J. R. (2013) The neurobiology of psychopathic traits in youths. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(11), pp. 786-799.
- 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.
- Merton, R. K. (1938) Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), pp. 672-682.
- Ministry of Justice (2018) Understanding organised crime: Estimating the scale and the social and economic costs. UK Government.
- Moffitt, T. E. (1993) Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), pp. 674-701.
- Moffitt, T. E. (2005) The new look of behavioral genetics in developmental psychopathology: Gene-environment interplay in antisocial behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 131(4), pp. 533-554.
- Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2020) Crime in England and Wales: Year ending March 2020. ONS.
- Rafter, N. (2008) The criminal brain: Understanding biological theories of crime. New York University Press.
- Raine, A. (2013) The anatomy of violence: The biological roots of crime. Pantheon Books.
- Rhee, S. H. and Waldman, I. D. (2002) Genetic and environmental influences on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies. Psychological Bulletin, 128(3), pp. 490-529.
- Sutherland, E. H. (1939) Principles of criminology. J.B. Lippincott.
- Warr, M. (2002) Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge University Press.
(Word count: 1,612 including references)
