I want to know what people think about this topic. Do you feel that criminal behavior is based on the enviornment we live in, or do you feel that it is based on our genetic make up?
I lean towards genetic make up as the cause of criminality. As an example of such Monomine Oxidase or MAO is an enzime that correlates to antisocial behavior or a more serious behavioral disorder known as Anti-Social Personality Disorder.
Anyway let me know what you think is the cause of criminal behavior?
Modern psychiatry will, to an extent, defend the organic nature of various disturbances or imbalances (e.g. major depressive disorder) on the basis that their treatments (empirical, ironically), work in many cases. That it is not clear how is part of why this topic is difficult.
there is an abnormally about of criminals with either the genotype XXY or XYY-(can't remember exactly, but I am 75% sure it is XXY)-due to non-disjunction. However, this has never really been proven to be the cause of the number of criminals.
Are you saying that a major contributing genetic factor in criminal behaviour is trisomy? This doesn't seem to be at all the case- these trisomies in particular have rather clear phenotypic manifestations so trends would have been starkly observed a while back.
Kids raised in poverty may arguably be in more compelling circumstance to steal.
Kids raised in rich environments to rich families are reputed to be the worse thieves (so the anecdote goes), prompting one to ask where their family fortune came from.
Kids raised in certain tribal communities are not taught the concept of private ownership and so, apparently to us, steal all the time.
The law may paint itself as just that but in the end knowing something is illegal is not necessarily an absolute contraindication to certain behaviours, nor are those behaviours necessarily pathological should one be compelled to illegal behaviour. The legal system merely purports to discourage or encourage certain behaviours and thus modulates our actions and beliefs.
Further to what I said earlier, certain neurobiologists, behaviourists, psychologists and psychistrists are interested in creating a table of universal behaviours so we can interpret how we relate to these factors more strongly.
First off, it's based on animals, not humans, therefore any conclusions we draw have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
It is not exactly the same, but their is much that you can learn from animal behavior.
Secondly, it is quite likely that the group that seemingly overcame their instinctive urge to kill mice either became attatched to the mice or reassociated them, not neccessarily overriding their instinct. This is even more probable if the kittens were adequately fed. However, if they were given a stimuli to do so, ie hunger, their natural instincts may have taken over and they would have killed the mice for food.
Haha! If those were the circumstances, if the mice were hungry, then that would mean that it was no genetics that made them kill, but hunger or "nurture".
For more on my reasoning, page 2.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Alright, so far all I keep seeing is "If someone's parrent was bad and the kid was bad.... they must have inherited their behavior."
If a criminal had a child, but the child was raised by other parrents. Would the child end up being a criminal? He may be short tempered like his father, but that only means he is more likely to comit a crime.
But no matter what the traits, your chemical balances are not set in stone. Every day, our bodies are tweaking to the environment. So that child used in my example, he may have had a shorter temper, but it is possible that over the years, he learned to control that anger. Therefore, under nurture (environment), his chemical balances had changed. If his new parrents were horrible parrents, he may have an even bigger anger problem.
In fact, perfectly healthy children who are abused are highly likely to have mental problems of some sort. From Anti-Socail Disorder to Multiple Personality Disorder, stress can cause these disorders despite what a child's genetic makeup is.
Strop, I believe I mentioned that along with the note that the study was never proven and has never really proved anything. It was just an interesting fact I came upon while studying genetics. Trisomy isn't a proven cause of criminal activities, just a coincidence.
Children experience both the influence of their parents' genes and also the environment in which they are raised, so it is difficult to assign which behaviors were influenced by the two factors. Consistent research explains that families with a stimulating home environment, a positive child-parent relationship and consistent disciplinary techniques yield a better well being for children. On the opposing side, families with poor communication skills and weak family bonds can run the risk of children developing aggressive or even criminal behaviors.
A study utilized a large Dutch family and found a point mutation in the structural gene for monoamine oxidase, a neurochemical in the brain, which they associated with aggressive criminal behavior among a number of males in that family. Evidence suggests that low concentrations of 5-HIAA can be associated with impulsive aggression. These results have not been confirmed in any additional family studies. However, this one family study does seem to suggest that genetics play an important role in antisocial or criminal behavior.
Personally, I think that this is just an excuse. You can't just say "It's not my fault I shot him, it's cause my dad has bad genes!" If you think that the judge would accept that as an alibi, you deserve to go to jail.
You can't just say "It's not my fault I shot him, it's cause my dad has bad genes!"
The issue of madness and criminal responsibility was being debated as far back as the 13th century that the âwill to harmâ must be evident within a crime and the lack of such a will among the mad excused them of responsibility. Effectively, as a result cases of criminal behavior needed additional criteria for judging criminal responsibility, in other words being able to distinguish if a person is mentally sound. In time this criteria became an independent measure of madness allowing juries an option of finding the accused not guilty by reason of insanity. Historically the legal system has embraced medical expertise. Without a doubt legal issues relating to madness and insanity continue to be examined within a medical framework.
Trisomy isn't a proven cause of criminal activities, just a coincidence.
Well...I'm not saying that the study proved anything. I'm directly questioning the results of the study...could you send me a link or a source that wouldn't, say, require me to fork out fifty bucks to Elseiver or Blackwell Synergy some other academic online host?
To explain, "criminals" act a certain way because they reason to believe that whatever they choose to do is the best course of action. Asking whether generic or environental factors play in ones reasoning is completely irelevant to the original question. But if you want an answer from me, I'd say both play a role.
Haha! If those were the circumstances, if the mice were hungry, then that would mean that it was no genetics that made them kill, but hunger or "nurture".
My point was that these kittens never 'earnt to kill and eat mice. The hunger factor may have been due to the environment, but the response, the hunting and killing of the mice, was never learnt and so therefore would be down to the genetic instincts of the kitten.
In the same way that a baby feeds. Once it is born no on teaches it to breastfeed, it just does so.
To explain, "criminals" act a certain way because they reason to believe that whatever they choose to do is the best course of action. Asking whether generic or environental factors play in ones reasoning is completely irelevant to the original question. But if you want an answer from me, I'd say both play a role.
Choosing what the best course of action is, is responding to an environmental stimuli, thus nurture plays more of a role.
Criminals are a completely different species we need to study. Their actions are not based on reasoning.
I don't buy this.
1) Again refer to my previous point about definitions of criminality. 2) Since when are any of our actions based on reasoning? Or more specifically, entirely on reasoning? Are you implying that so-called rationality is an absolute measure of our behaviours?
