The Concepts Of Nature And Nurture

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

The battle between nature and nurture has been going on for many years and still remains to be debated about today. As more information is gained on the subject of genetics and how and if criminal traits can be passed on compared to the environment in which the person is brought up and the ways they have been socialised. This then gives a starting point on how we go about deciding whether or not someone is born evil.

Firstly if we start with classical criminology and examine how little considerations there was for biological, sociological, environmental and psychological perspectives at this time. For example people believed in the spiritualistic approach (St Thomas Aquinas, 1225-74) this is where if a crime was committed it was seen as going against god and doing the work of the devil. Whereas today when a crime is committed it’s seen as going against the state. There was no differentiation between a child and adults punishment, Nor was there between first offenders and recidivists and no allowance for the mentally ill. Whereas today we take all of these into consideration.This is not the influence of nurture but based on the individuals choice

Over 500 years later Ceasare Beccaria (1738-1794) anonymously wrote on the topic of Dei Deliti e Delle Penne (on crime and punishment) (Treadwell, 2006, pg16) he considered that ‘criminals owe a ‘debt’ to society and proposed that punishment should be fixed strictly in proportion to the seriousness of the crime’ as sited in (Hopkins Burke, 2005, pg24). This then brought about a revolution within the punishment system and it still plays a huge part today.

Lombroso (1835-1909) who was greatly inspired by Charles Darwin (1809-1882) 'Origins of Species' went on to created a paradigm shift which ‘Led the movement away from the classical school towards scientific positivism...applying the concept of atavism to criminological theory.’(Vito, Maahs & Holmes, 2006, pg83) 'He concluded that criminals were biological throwbacks (atavists) on the evolutionary scale... He identified these criminal as having low foreheads and broad noses...these people had strong tendencies towards law breaking.' (Vito, Maahs & Holmes, 2006, pg85) This positivistic approach was an adventurous step to look for evidence relating to why people commit crime and for the first time to contemplate that biology may play a part in people being born evil instead of being made that way.

Although research by Goring (1913) did not support Lombroso’s theory. He believed there was no such thing as an anthropological criminal type. In his statistical study of 3000 male convicts he found that ‘contact with criminal parents did not seem significant factors associated with criminal conduct...therefore...the primary source of criminal behaviour is inherited characterises rather than environmental factors’ (Hopkins Burke, 2005, pg58) although Goring did see that ‘criminal are...distinguishable from non-criminals...he turned the attention of criminologists to the study of psychological characteristics, especially defective intelligence, as a cause of criminal behaviour.’ According to Quinney (2000, pg17)

Sheldon’s (1949) theory on Somatotypes supported Goring’s view as there was a strong link between the theories of body types. He ‘attempted to link criminal behaviour to body build...According to Sheldon, there are three basic body types: endomorph (fat), ectomorph (thin) and mesomorph (muscular)... Sheldon... realised that the temperament of mesomorphs might lead to them being more likely to become involved in criminal activity.’ (Putwain, Sammons, 2002, pg31)

Glueck and Glueck (1950) ‘compared male delinquents and non-delinquents, finding a number of physical differences between the two groups...in particular that there was a substantially higher proportion of mesomphs in the delinquents than non-delinquents group’ (Newburn, 2007, pg128). Similarly to Sheldon the Gluecks linked the three body types finding that mesomorph were generally more likely to commit a crime.

When this idea arose that criminality is inherited in the same way as physical characteristics a good way of testing this was twin studies. Lange (1929) did a study on fraternal and identical twins, his finding shown that '77% of identical twins shared criminal behaviour patterns apposed to 12% of fraternal' (Cassel, Bernstein, 2007, pg60) 'Lange thus concluded that heredity plays a major part in the causation of criminal behaviour.' (Hopkins Burke, 2005, pg59) but according to (Rowe,1990) as twins are brought up together as a general rule, it becomes virtually impossible to reach any firm conclusion as to the role of inherited characteristics alone.

When In the case of adopted children where parental influence is not around then it suggests more conclusively that inherited characteristics can cause criminal behaviour.Hutching and Mednick (1977) found that 'adoptees with criminal records had a higher proportion of biological mothers and fathers with criminal records than adoptees with no criminal record. (Newburn, 2007, pg136) Bohman (1995) did a similar study on adoptees, both of the findings were alike but there evidence was not absolute as not all adoptees are adopted straight from birth it could be months or years after. Therefore nurture could play apart in weather the child turns out criminal not just nature.

These theories are based around nature an biological and perspectives and make no connection to social or environmental factors. According to Newburn (2007, pg128) they largely reject the possibility that social inequality or other environmental factors might have explanatory power so far as criminality was concerned.

Freud (1856-1939) presents a psychological perspective toward the nature nurture debate proposing 'two different models of criminal behaviour. The first views certain forms of criminal activity... and the second model proses a 'weak conscience'…crucially, a disturbance at one or more of these stages in childhood can lead to criminal behaviour in later life'(Hopkins Burke,2005, pg75) concluding that criminality is in the mind and that we 'resolve tensions by finding ways of satisfying the basic inner urges by engaging in activities sanctioned by society.'(Hopkins Burke, 2005, pg75).

An additional strand of criminological research which is referred to as 'development criminology' it investigates an individuals change in offending over their life course. Sampson and Laub (1993) argue that 'weak social bonds are a key factor in understanding the link between adolescent delinquency and adult criminality.Having a weak social bonds in early life is strongly associated with juvenile delinquency, and both predict later crime an deviance.' (Newburn, 2007, pg843)

Another theorists who is influential within the studies of crime over the life course is Moffitt (1993) she argues that 'there are two distinct patterns that may be identified... 'life-course persistent' …this is where offending behaviour tends to begin early and continues throughout life... and 'adolescence - limited' ... this is where offending ...increases...in early adolescence, and then declines...after the age of 18.' (Newburn, 2007, pg844). Within Moffits theory she uses both sociological criminology saying that family risk factors play a part, but also the biological side saying that genetics are also involved with creating criminality.

Another perspective within the nature & nurture debates is the sociological view. This looks at how society creates criminality. Whereas the biological and psychological perspectives view crime as being controlled by nature therefore criminals are born. But the sociological perspective views the other side of the debate saying that crime is controlled by nurture therefore criminals are created.

One of the most renowned sociologist Emile Durkheim (1893-1933) found 'two types of criminals altruistic and common. The altruistic criminal is … offended by the rules of society...is motivated by a sense of duty to improve society...whereas the common criminal rejects all laws and disciplines and purposely violates law... with no social considerations.' (Vito, Maahs, 2011, pg141). According to Vito and Maahs (2011, pg141) Durkheim's theories serve as the foundation for most current sociological theories of crime.

Robert Merton's (1939) strain theory extended Durkheim's insight 'Merton defined anomie as "the mismatch between culturally valued goals and the institutional means of achieving those goals" he argued that cultures often teach people to value material success...however societies don’t provide enough legitimate opportunities for everyone to succeed. Therefore... people experience strain...and will force themselves to adhere to social norms... Merton called this conformity. the rest adapt in one of four ways retreatism, ritualism, rebellion and innovation.' (Brym, Lie, 2009, pg 152).

According to Newburn (2007, pg180) 'it was Albert Cohen's (1955) work which picked up on Merton's theory and introduced the notions of cultural and subculture to the study of delinquency...rather than anomie, Cohen suggests that competition and frustration around status is the key to understanding youthful delinquency.' Cohen believed that ' juvenile offending was rarely motivated by ...financial success proposed by Merton...he thought that adolescent gang member...stole for the fun of it and took pride...the subculture offers possibilities for status that are denied elsewhere.' (Hopkins Burke, 2005, pg106). This theory shows that different statuses and 'status frustration' within society can cause criminality.

Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin (1960) also talked about deviant subculture and wrote a book call 'Delinquency and Opportunity' they also came up with the foundations of the labelling theory. They believe that 'the essence of the problem is that the opportunities to succeed in the legitimate system have been blocked and … adolescents …see this as not being their own faults, but as the fault of the system.' (Einstadter, Henry, 2006, pg169). 'It is this awareness that leads to a rejection of conventional codes of behaviour.' (Hopkins Burke, 2005, pg108)

As sighted in Newburn (2007, pg195) 'Edwin Sutherland (1947) ideas have has a lasting impact on various aspects of criminology.His theory of different association was... crucial in moving criminology away from theories by...biology...and physiological perspectives with his...argument that criminal behaviour is learnt.' This evidence shows that nurture within a society can be a cause of criminality.

This shows us the link between social theories to environmental theories and how nurture can influence criminality. Jeffery (1977) identified the interaction between the individuals and the environment as a crucial element (Hopkins Burke, 2005, pg189)

This then shows the ways to a wider discussion of the effects that the environment has on criminal behaviour. One of the earliest environmental theories was Guerry (1833) and Quètelet (1842) they 'had analysed conviction rates for crimes committed in different geographical areas … making a number … of findings. First, crime rates varied greatly. … an secondly … patterns remained stable over time. (Hopkins Burke, 2005, pg194). 'Similar studies were carried out in England and these also showed variations in crime rates between different countries, towns and villages. (Plint,1851; Mayhew, 1968). This shows that different environmental influences can effect criminal behaviour and criminality.

Another influential study on the subject of environmental criminality is The Chicago School. Robert Parks (1921) 'contributed two central ideas to the work of the Chicago School. First, he proposed that, like any ecological system, the development an organisation of the city is ...patterned. … secondly park observed that the nature of these social processes had their impact on human behaviours like crime, and these could be ascertained only through … study of city life.' (Hopkins Burke, 2005, pg94)

This created a research schedule of which many theories would support. Ernest Burgess (1928)

To conclude the nature and nurture debate covers a lot of theorists from classical criminology to biological, sociological, physiological and environmental perspectives. All taking the side of either nature saying that criminality is passed on through genetics and people are therefore born criminals opposed to nurture looking at aspects such as social and environmental factors within upbringing that can create criminals and therefore they are made not born. Overall neither side can be to blame for criminality as without the other it would not be effective. Genetics effects your mind therefore controlling your behaviour but the environment and society you are exposed to, moulds the way people will act. Moreover this debate will always be open to controversial conflict as without accurate evidence that nature or nurture causes criminality the debate will always be on going.