Are Criminals Born or Made? PDF

Preview

Summary

Are Criminals Born or Made? An essay covering the naturvs nurture argument of Criminology....

Description

Are Criminals Born or Made? Crime is difficult to define due to the varying degrees of opinion as to what constitutes a ‘crime’. However, for the purpose of examining whether a criminal is ‘born’ or ‘made’, it is best to define crime as ‘acts of moral rule breakings defined in law’. Moral rules are the guidelines which state how individuals should act in society. Laws are derived from moral rules, thus violations of the law are acts of moral rule breaking. To explain the cause of offending behaviour is essentially a question of explaining moral action and why individuals come to breach moral rules, particularly those defined in law (Wikström and Treiber, 2007). There are many theories to explain deviant behaviour in the field of criminology. There is no one paradigm considered by scholars to be significantly superior to others, therefore there are many ‘schools of thought’ a criminologist may follow (Cullet and Agnew, 2006). Before the Renaissance era and the rise of scientific method, there was no discernible difference between crime and sin, which was often dealt with by church courts as, in essence, all crime was sin, and all sin was punishable by God (Jones, 2006). As centuries progressed, however, crime began to be examined in a more scientific way. One of the most widely recognised for bringing scientific methods into the study of crime was Cesare Lombroso, the theory being that of the ‘born criminal’ (Rafter 2005). The biological theory of crime first came to attract widespread attention with Cesare Lombroso and his proposed method of ‘criminal anthropology’ which dictated that a criminal was less evolved than the average person, apelike throwbacks which could be easily identified by deviations in physical features and measurements (Rafter, 1997). Before Lombroso popularised this theory, however, there was already much research going into this area. Moritz Benedikt published his investigations long in advance of Lombroso, having dissected the craniums of criminals to examine their brains. He claimed to have found a ‘deviation from the normal type’, creating debate in the United States about the existence of an anatomically distinct criminal type (Rafter, 1997). Modern biological criminology focuses more on genetic abnormalities, an example of which being variations of the DHD4 receptor. It is believed these variations influence antisocial behaviour (DeYoung et al. 2006, cited in Simons et al. 2012), however, many studies indicate that even with a predisposed nature to commit crime, an individual will not necessarily act on this unless exposed to negative environmental factors, such as poor parenting during childhood (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. 2006; Propper et al. 2007. Cited in Simons et al. 2012). In fact, the general consensus amongst criminologists at present seems to be that regardless of genetic predisposition, social and environmental factors, also referred to as ‘storylines’, are what provoke most offenders to commit crime (Agnew 2006; Kavanaugh 2010). General strain theory (GST) was developed by Robert Agnew in response to the criticisms associated with traditional strain theories, in particular, the emphasis placed on failure to achieve positive goals. GST expands on traditional strain theory to suggest that the presence of negative stimuli or removal of positive stimuli also promote offending, however, it is not to be mistaken that general strain is a direct cause of crime itself, rather, GST suggests that these strains cause a range of negative emotions, and it is the emotional reaction experienced by the individual and how they respond which directly or indirectly leads to crime (Piquero, Sealock, 2010). Siegal (2006) criticized GST for its failure to address ecological or individual patterns regarding crime rate. Without acknowledging these patterns GST would lead one to assume that places in which crime rate is higher are merely inhabited by more impulsive people.

Another theory based on social interactions, thus contributing to the ‘nurture’ side of the debate, is social disorganization. Social disorganization theory relates to evidence of higher juvenile crime rates in structurally disadvantaged areas. Such areas are characterized by poverty, unemployment, single parent households, etc. suggesting the reason for youth crime in these areas to be the limited opportunities for the future (Kingston, Huizinga and Elliot, 2009). This contributes to strain theory as lack of support creates general strain, however research has shown that high levels of social mobility can reduce the rate of crime in disadvantaged areas, and not all disadvantaged areas have higher crime rates than neighbourhoods seen to have a better social structure (Kingston, Huizinga and Elliot, 2009). Unlike traditional social and biological theories of criminology which assume the causes of crime to lie within psychological or socio-economic circumstances of the offender, the theory of labeling argues that defining individuals as ‘deviant’ can have a negative impact, thus promoting future reoffending (Mclaughlin and Newburn, 2010). Howard Becker (1963) famously claimed that behaviour only becomes deviant if it is labelled as such, leading to modern claims that prisons are the ‘colleges of crime’. By labelling individuals as deviant offenders are being put into a category of society separate from peers who do not engage in criminal behaviour. Harris (1975, 1976) postulated that labelling has more of an effect on those who are already integrated members of society, as this devalues the individual’s status within the social group (Wellford, Triplett 1993). Conversely, one of the biggest problems found with labelling theory is that it does not explain the causes of crime but instead provides reasoning for the cause of reoffending after a crime has already been committed. The ‘nature versus nurture’ debate is not an ‘either-or’ proposition. Just as with many other variations in an individual’s phenotype, more often than not it is a range of both social and biological factors which leads individuals to deviate from social norms. Studies to prove this is the case have used three main forms, twin studies, adoption studies and gene identification methods, concluding that the presence of a gene coding for increased predisposition to crime does not necessarily confirm that the individual will offend (McGue, Bouchard Jr, 1998).

References Agnew R (2006) ‘Storylines As a Neglected Cause of Crime’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43(2) Cullet FT, Agnew R, (2006), Criminological theory: past to present: essential readings- 3rd ed. Roxbury Publishing Company, p.1 Jones, K (2006) Gender and Petty Crime in Late Medieval England: The Local Courts in Kent, 14601560. Volume 2 of Gender in the Middle Ages. Boydell Press, p.14 Kavanaugh PR (2010) Storylines of Physical and Sexual Assault in Urban Nightlife: The Impact of Individual Disposition and Social Context http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=252441 Kingston B, Huizinga D, Elliot DS (2009) ‘A Test of Social Disorganization Theory in High-Risk Urban Neighbourhoods’ Youth Society 41(1)

McGue M, Bouchard Jr TJ (1998), ‘Genetic and Environmental Influences on Human Behavioural Differences’, Annual Reviews Inc. Mclaughlin E, Newburn T (2010) The Sage handbook of Criminological Theory. Los Angeles; London: Sage, p.140 Piquero NL, Sealock MD (2010) ‘Race, Crime and General Strain Theory’, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 8(3) Rafter, NH (1997) Creating Born Criminals. University of Illinois Press, p.110, p.123 Rafter, NH (2005) ‘Cesare Lombroso and the origins of criminology: rethinking criminological tradition’ prepared for Henry S, Lanier M The Essential Criminology Reader (2005) Westview/Basic Books Siegel, L. (2006) Criminology, 9th ed. Thomson/Wadsworth Simons RL, Lei MK, Beach SR.H, Brody GH, Philibert RA, and Gibbons FX. (2012) ‘Social Environmental Variation, Plasticity Genes, and Aggression: Evidence for the Differential Susceptibility Hypothesis’, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10(1) Wellford CF, Triplett RA (1993), ‘The Future of Labelling Theory: Foundations and Promises’ http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/blomberg/thefuture.html Wikström P-OH, Treiber K (2007) ‘The Role of Self-Control in Crime Causation: Beyond Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime’, European Journal of Criminology 4(2)...