Criminal Behavior and Biological and Social Factors - Essay Example

A discussion of how biological factors might interact with sociological factors in predicting criminal behaviors. Name: Course name: Tutor’s name: Institution’s name: Date: Discussion of how biological factors interact with sociological factors in predicting criminal behaviors. Abstract They say in every family there is a`` black sheep” member of the family, and so is the same common in most societies. Here the so-called black sheep are those people who exhibit criminal behaviors in the societies. One of the biggest challenges that the law enforcers have to deal with in their day-to-day work is trying as much as possible to curb and minimize criminal acts in the society. Generally, acts of crime in the recent past have been on the increase in most societies if not all. Largely, this is because of change of lifestyles and the pressure from societal demands. Arresting, prosecuting and punishing persons who commit crimes in societies is commendable. However, as much as it serves to minimize crimes in societies, it is not very effective because by so doing, it is like trying to wipe away spilling water while the tap is still running. More emphasis should be on trying to understanding the overlying factors that attribute to criminal behaviors in individuals. Whether individuals are born criminals or made criminals is a topic of great debate. In this paper, we seek to establish the link between biological, genetic, and sociological factors used in determining criminals. Furthermore, it tries to establish how the three factors may interact to predict a person’s criminal behavior. When this is established, it may give a green light as far as the war against crime is concerned. Introduction In criminology, criminal behavior is defined as; any behavior that has criminal intent, or that results in punishment by law enforcement. Whether people are born with criminal tendencies or behaviors or they acquire or learn the behavior from the environment they associate with, is an area with great debate. Some proponents argue that behaviors are learnt, only as an individual interacts with the surrounding environment. That a person is born with an `empty mind’ (blank slate) and that a person can be made to become anything by controlling the person’s environment. According to Lock (1697), he argues that at birth, human mind is a blank slate, or a tabula rasa and empty of ideas. That knowledge and behaviors are acquired as a person interacts with the environment. In this case, the genes have nothing to do with a person’s behavior. On the other hand, other proponents propose that what a person becomes is determined by the person’s genetic make-up. This debate brings us to examine, albeit critically, the two factors in predicting the criminal behaviors of persons. The two factors being, the biological factors also known as genetic factors or hereditary factors, and the sociological factors, which may also be known as environmental factors. In our discussion, we look at how these two factors may interact to predict a person’s behavior. There have been many vocal debates in the field of criminology, sociology, and medicine on this matter. However, in as much as many theories have been proposed, each tries to adopt a certain non-inclusive path to address and draw the thin line between genetics and social upbringing. Nevertheless, to a trained eye, they all seem to put their premises, discoveries and conclusions in different words but all postulating a similar theory. The summative position is that genetics predispose an individual to act criminally then the environment where he or she is used to add on to it, further escalating the inherent potential to act unsociably. This topic ends up in the ageless arguments that pit what the nature offers with how socialization is dominant in terms of behavior acquisition. This make us to ask ourselves whether the aggregate individual conduct is a precondition that is dictated by genetic predisposition that actually makes some persons to become criminals, or is it the environment that the person is raised in that determines what a person becomes. Because of the debate, it led to a research to being conducted in trying to determine which factor was responsible for the person’s criminality. The research came with a conclusion that genetic inheritance together with the overarching social environment is the factors to blame for criminality of a person. The study consisted a number of twin families, adaption studies, as well as laboratory experiments. The research suggested the interaction between the genes of an individual and the environment as the pivotal aspect that predicts criminal behavior. However, most of the introspections have never wanted to investigate each of these factors independently. It is noteworthy that the conditions of the researches had their own flaws. One of these flaws is that human behavior is very dynamic and therefore an error-free experiment is nearly impossible. Second to this is that the research environment, in itself, has been proven to inhibit human conduct. Genetic factors The term genetic, come from the word gene, which is the basic unit that is capable to transmit characteristics from one generation and individual to another. Therefore, genetics is a branch of biology that deals with hereditary. As we look at genetic factors, we look at those characters that are transmitted from parents to their offsprings. At this level, we want to assume that if an individual turns out with criminal behavior, is that he or she inherited the behavior from the parent and that the blame should not lie squarely on him or her because he or she is just a carrier of what they begot from their ancestry. To support this notion, let us have a look at some of the studies carried out to indicate that genetic factors play a role in predicting a person’s criminality. The study called; twin, adoption, and family study looked at several monozygotic twins and identical twins and comparing the incidence and prevalence of illicit tendencies with that of dizygotic twins as well as with fraternal twins. Monozygotic twins are twin that develop from the same egg/ovum and therefore their genetic composition is similar while dizygotic twins are the opposite. These twins were raised apart, adopted by a non-relative just immediately after being born. A discovery was arrived at. It became apparently clear that younger and older age improper social conduct was under big influence from heredity (Rodgers Buster and Rowe, 2001). The MZ twin pairs were found to have a 50% concordance (in one out of two cases both twins exhibited criminal behavior) where in the DZ cases there was only 21% concordance. This illustrates a strong correlation of genetics and criminal disposition. Source: (Rodgers Buster and Rowe, 2001) The research became indispensable as it critically evaluated the control of the social setting in the determination of personal conduct. The results depicted a greater concordance as existing in monozygotic twins than for dizygotic twins. It can be summed that monozygotic twins are more likely to exhibit tendencies that often points toward criminal behavior. Therefore genetics, has been clearly identified as an influence. The researchers also discovered that persons whose mothers serve criminal terms exhibited, when they become adults , pointing signs towards criminality. This further confirms the aspersion that genetics cannot be underestimated. It can be comfortably argued that it is evidential that conspicuous antisocial tendencies are inheritable. Sociological and environmental factors Human beings are supposed to be social in nature and that is why interaction with others is critical so is with the surrounding and, or the environment. If human life is to be complete socialization becomes unavoidable. As Lock attributes that humans are born with their mind being a blank slate, and therefore what they become is because of interacting with the environment. Environment implies other individuals, related to one or not, and other immediate factors. Looking at the sociological factors as being determinant of a person’s criminal behavior, we imply that criminals are not born criminals but rather they learn to be criminals. This means that the environment that a person is brought up plays a crucial role in determining what kind of a person one becomes. For instance assuming a person was born `a good person’ and then taken to an environment characterized with antisocial and criminal activities, the `good person’ is likely to become a criminal because he/she has been socialized to by a crime filled environment. In socialization, a child is taught how to act and behave according to the societal norms. Here a child, learns and incorporates norms and the society’s ideals. This implies that if the child is brought up in an environment that instills values in the child, that rewards good acts and punishes bad acts, the child is more likely to become a responsible member of the society, unlike when the child is brought up in an environment that has no morals, that is characterized with deviant behaviors. When a young person is left to learn on his or her own without proper and constant guidance of his or her superiors, then there is minimal or no acquisition of values and ideals that would deter them against the expectations. As a parent, one notices some weird behaviors in the child such as stealing, lying among other undesirable deeds. Therefore, it is justifiable to argue that it is the responsibility of the parent to correct the child by any possible means when the child is still young because it is easier to learn and change for a child as compared to an adult. Consequently, a child must be socialized with the acceptable behaviors early in life. The family environment is very critical in the nurturing of young ones. If such an enabling setting and condition is unstable or completely unavailable, a child is likely to suffer the consequences of unacceptable behavior acquisition. This may, in effect, go a long way in affecting the child even when he or she is a grown up. Having looked at both the biological factors and the sociological factors how they play to predict the person’s criminal behavior, we can now say that both biological factors and sociological factors do interact to determine or predict a person’s criminal behavior. We have seen that either of the factors may affect or predict the criminality of a person. However, when the issue is looked at from both sides, it gives a better understanding and so is to predicting criminal behaviors. Biologically, neurochemicals are responsible in activation of behavioral patterns and tendencies in some specific areas of brains. Apart from the neurochemicals, a person may contain predisposing genes for criminality, but these genes largely will depend on the environment. If a person having such genes interact with crime filled environment, the genes are likely to be `activated’ and take better part of the individual. This leads to that individual becoming or exhibiting criminal behaviors, where as even if the individual has these genes but is brought up in a good environment, these genes are suppressed and therefore though the person contain such genes he or she does not exhibit criminal behaviors. On the other hand, it is possible that a person may not have the genes associated with criminality but because of the environment, that the person was/is brought up in, the person ends up exhibiting criminal behaviors even though genetically, he has no such genes. Conclusion That criminality is a product of only biological factors or only of sociological factors cannot be distinctively ascertained. The two factors both interact to predict the individual’s criminal behavior. Though other researchers claim that genetic factors play the major role in determining the outcome of a person’s behavior as compared to that of environmental factors, there is no enough evidence to support this assertion. In as much as many studies and researches have focused on this issue, the result should be used as additional information in the management of criminal behaviors in our societies. It should not be taken as the gospel truth on handling the issue because the researches do have flaws also because it is difficult to effectively monitor and control the environment just the same way it is to study a person especially if he or she realizes that they are under study. Looking at the roles that genetics and environment play in determining criminal behaviors, we can only say that there is a complex interaction between nature and nurture as far as predicting an individual’s criminal behavior is concerned. Conclusively, we can say that both the inherited genes and the social environment he or she is accustomed to fuel the tendency for one to be a criminal. With the knowledge that criminal behaviors are born or made, it is important that we identify these early in children. It is imperative that the young are given or availed the right environment so that they do not turn out to be criminals and in so doing, we will reduce the level of crimes in our societies as opposed to just arresting those who have already turned out to be criminals. References Lock, J. (1697). An essay concerning human understanding. London: Kissinger Publishers. Rodgers, J. L., Buster, M. & Rowe, D. C. (2001). ‘‘Genetics and environmental influence on delinquency’’ Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 145-168. Read More