Arguments Among Sociologists - Is a Criminal Made or Born?

Is a Criminal Made or born?

For decades there have been arguments among sociologists, criminologists, and psychologists over how one becomes a criminal. Are you destined from birth to become ruthless and cold-hearted? Is it the parents fault for not raising their children corectly? Many people have been trying to determine when a human can be identified as a criminal, so that it can be prevented, deterred, or even maybe even reversed. However, very scarce progress has been made in this endeavor, much due to there being no realistic way to conduct conclusive experiments on such a subject. Numerous studies have shown that twins whom are separated at birth will indeed have similar characteristics, especially in the areas of aggressiveness, nurturance, empathy, and assertiveness (Wood et al., 2005, p.365). This obviously shows that we are born with some instinctive personality traits, which may lead one to believe that one's path to becoming a criminal is not a matter of nature versus nurture, but to a certain extent an matter of nature and nurture in harmony with each other. By this, it can be interpreted that although anyone may possess the capacity to become a criminal, people who are born with such personality traits such as higher aggression and the tendency to become temperamental with minimal provocation are much more likely to commit crimes if they have had an abnormal rearing.

Those who support the nature side of the argument claim that personality is natural, and that you inherit behaviors due to various interactions of genes. For instance, if your mother was easily aggravated, and your father was easily aggravated, than you will most likely share the same attribute. Many people who support this side of the argument are usually very religious and believe in some sort of creator, or divine being who guides and influences our every move. In essence one can state that they may believe that humans do not possess a free will, and that everything you do has already been predetermined. They also hypothesize that you inherit your fears, level of religiousness, and cognitive capabilities. "A separate adoption study . . . found that sons whose biological parents had a criminal record were four times as likely to have a serious criminal record, compared with those without familial criminality" (Chemical Imbalances and Criminal Violence, 1988). Recently, it has been professed that there exist genes that influence people to become alcoholics and homosexuals. If one is to believe such claims, then it would seem very plausible that some genes that help develop people into become criminals. Personally, I do not believe that our genes can determine our future, or in essence doom us from the moment we enter into the world. Even if one is born with terrible chemical imbalances, I believe that a proper upbringing consisting of proper attention, discipline, and love can reconstruct and reformat one's mind (not necessarily make them normal, but make them able to socialize with others), and let them live a moderately normal life.

People at the other end of the spectrum argue that personality is nurtured, and that when you are born, your mind is blank and very impressionable. They believe that your personality is mainly comprised of and influenced by your environment, and your experiences in your culture and school. Many of the people on this side of the argument claim themselves to be behaviorists. Personally, I strongly agree with these so called behaviorist on the point: "We still have choices. Some of our choices may be harder for us than for another person without our genetic predisposition/upbringing. Take an alcoholic and someone without this predisposition for instance, if both were offered a drink at a party it would be easier for the normal person to say no, but the predisposition of the alcoholic doesn't mean he MUST say