Recent statistics show that crime rates have continued rising despite several advancements in prevention strategies put up by security agencies at the community and operational levels. Moreover, several researchers have carried out studies to ascertain the association between the crime on one hand and the social environment and genetic makeup on the other hand. Raine asserted that conflicting studies have failed in explaining the genesis and the drivers of crime due to their selectiveness while dealing with the issue (1993, p.46). Proponents of biological positivists and social scientists have delved on separate studies thereby leading controversies on the tenacity of their findings. Despite this setback, the opponents have come to the conclusion that crime is mainly driven by a constellation of factors that include genetic makeup and influences from the social environment. This essay will support the notion that criminals are made with reference to the nature versus nurture debate.
First and foremost, a criminal is anybody who indulges in an act that is against the set rules governing an organized system in the society and may lead to prosecution and conviction. Since crime is not a new occurrence, different theories that serve to explain the process exist. More importantly, different ways of addressing the vice forwarded by psychologists and sociologists have continually found usage in modern society. The nature versus nurture debate has found usefulness in the explanation of the criminal aspect of the society (Plomin, Fulker, Corley & DeFries, 1988, p. 448). To start with, nature versus debate is a concept that tends to explain the influence the environment and the heredity factors have on the professional or social careers of individuals in the society. While nativists believe that inherited factors and the genetic makeup play a major role in individual development, the empiricists are of the opinion that the interaction with the social, economic and political environment has more influence in deciding the destiny of an individual. This debate has continually informed psychologists who have ultimately utilized it to develop the interactionist theory that denote that interaction between environment and hereditary factors are responsible for the development of an individual social life (Plomin, Fulker, Corley & DeFries, 1988, p. 445).
Although genetic makeup plays a role in development of social life, it would be unfair to fail to overemphasize the role of the environment in influencing criminal life in the society. Studies have shown that there are variations in behaviors especially of twins brought up in different backgrounds in terms of the environment. The social learning theory and the labeling behaviour are some of the theories that have informed and supported the association between crime and environment. The theories assert that criminality is mainly a product of the socialization experienced by the individual. Socialization with various groups and individuals such as peers, family members and other agents may have a positive or negative influence on a person’s life. According to Hale (1998, p.54), criminal life is something that is learnt and acquired during social interaction. Learning of criminal behaviour is mainly through communication, observation where the children usually learn the motives and the benefits of indulging in the behavior. Despite the fact that the youths are aware of the punishments accorded to criminals, the satisfaction, influences from their peers and the benefits offered are irresistible.
The development of criminal behaviour is also pegged on several factors during the upbringing of the children. Children born out of hardships and brought up in slums are more likely to indulge in criminal behaviors. Likewise, introducing a child to crime in an early life may endear him to criminal activities since they tend to take it as a way of life. Furthermore, the frequent contacts they have with criminals and criminal activities may act to condition or stimulate them to experiment the same. This is further compounded by the fact that most of the criminals go unpunished due to the influence they hold in the social setup (Raine, 1993, p.46). The extravagance observed in the lives of criminals such as drug dealers’ acts as a motivation to hopeless youths who get trapped in criminal acts. The choice of crime has all to do with the upbringing as witnessed in the lives of children in unstable families where abuse is a norm. Introducing a child to an abusive life particularly at a tender age makes them more likely to become criminals since they tend to accumulate a lot of hate for their parents. The lack of ways to relieve the hate eventually leads them to criminal activities with the aim of inflicting pain to others. They tend to involve themselves in murder and rape as a way of expressing their dissatisfaction with their upbringing and also as a way of venting as much hate as possible to the society. Psychologists have indicated that the majority of the serial killers have experienced problems in their early life (Akers, 1985, p.24).
Factors in the socioeconomic environment have greatly influenced criminal behaviors. Politics also play a major role in influencing the social environment depending on how governance issues are dealt with. Wars and political instability has deprived individuals of their way of living thereby predisposing them to unemployment and poor living conditions. In line with this, skyrocketing rates in unemployment have become a common scenario in many a nation, thereby resulting in high levels of anxiety and stress (Aquinas, 1988, p.32). Compounding the anxiety and cases of stress in the society occurs when the affected indulge in drug abuse, considering the fact that rampancy in drug dealing in the modern society. The stress and anxiety witnessed in many unemployed people leads them to committing crimes as a way of fulfilling their daily obligations. Moreover, drug addiction requires a sustained flow of income to meet the daily dosages of the drugs. Since they lack sustainable income, the drug addicts become aggressive leading them to steal money so that they can afford to pay for the illegal drugs (Plomin, Fulker, Corley & DeFries, 1988, p. 445).
The responsibility of bringing up a child lies with both parents. However, due to the economic development, the majority of the parents have continually neglected their duties thereby leaving the destiny of their children on house girls and teachers. The labour market and the breakage of the social fabric have also resulted in many cases of single families in the society. The child born out in a single family lack the tender loving care accorded by both parents. In the majority of these cases, the mother shoulders all the responsibilities of bringing up the children on her own means. Owing to the fact that mothers are passive, the children tend to get the impression that they can do whatever they desire without receiving dire consequences from the guardians. Eventually, they may start indulging in irresponsible behaviors such as drug taking (Jensen, 1972, p. 68).
The proliferation of mass media has also aided the development of criminal behaviors in society. The airing of movies and acts that propagate violent crimes tend to promote the adoption of these behaviors in the society. The adoption of these behaviors is influenced by the status held by the actors. Moreover, evolution of music that tends to promote irresponsibility, immorality and crime has become common particularly in the western world. While the acting may not merely reflect the lives of these well known personalities, the youth are not dissuaded from duplicating the behaviors thereby leading to catastrophic ends. The challenges evident in regulation of access to information have not helped the situation, since one can get any form of information by just clicking a button (Akers, 1985, p. 34).
The nurture versus nature debate has contributed immensely to the development of the knowledge pertaining to criminal behavior. Measures targeting the youths and children at early age can largely impact in instilling positive behaviour. Parents should therefore endeavor to offer good care and attention to their children during their upbringing. From the points discussed above, it is apparent that life experiences are chiefly to blame for the development and adoption of criminal behaviors. Since the majority of the crimes are chiefly blamed on economic issues, it makes the nurture side of the debate a viable explanation of the criminal behaviors. More importantly, social factors such as unemployment, drug abuse and poor upbringing have largely contributed to the upsurge of criminal acts especially in the urban area. It is worth noting that criminals are made and not born.
Reference List
- Akers, R. (1985). Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. Belmont: Wadsworth.
- Aquinas, T. (1988). On Law, Morality and Politics. 2nd edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.
- Hale, R. (1998). The Application of Learning Theory to Serial Murder or You, Too, Can learn to be a Serial Killer, Pp. 75-84 in R. Holmes & S. Holmes (Eds.) Contemporary Perspectives on Serial Murder. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Jensen, G. (1972). Parents, Peers, and Delinquency. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 63-72.
- Plomin, R., Fulker, D. W., Corley, R. & DeFries, J. C. (1997). Nature, nurture and cognitive development from 1 to 16 years: a parent-offspring adoption study. Psychological Science 8: 442-447.
- Raine, A. (1993). The Psychology of crime: Criminal Behavior as a clinical disorder. (Chapter 3: Genetics and crime, pp. 47-79). San Diego: Academic Press.