Criminals: Born or Raised? by Michael Lasiuk

1266 Words6 Pages
Nature vs. Nurture: What Makes a Criminal? 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 raising their children poorly? 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 reversed. However, very limited progress has been made, due to there being no realistic way to conduct conclusive experiments. Various studies have shown that twins split apart at birth will have similar characteristics, especially in the areas of aggressiveness, nurturance, empathy, and assertiveness (Wood et al., 2005, p.365). Obviously this shows that we are born with some innate personality traits, which leads me to believe that becoming a criminal is not a matter of nature versus nurture, but rather an issue of nature and nurture in accordance with each other. By this I mean that although anyone can potentially become a criminal, people who are born with such personality traits as higher aggression and becoming temperamental with less provocation are much more likely to commit crimes if they have had an abnormal upbringing. Those who support the nature side of the argument claim that personality is natural, and that you inherit behaviours due to various interactions of genes. For example, if your mother was easily annoyed, and your father was easily annoyed, than you will most likely share that same characteristic. Many people on this side of the argument are very religious and believe in some sort of creator who guides our every move. They believe that humans don’t have a free will, and that everything you do has already been determined. They also speculate that you inherit your fears, degree of religiousness, and
Open Document