Discuss the nature/nurture debate using evidence from crime

Discuss the nature/nurture debate using evidence from crime studies.

Strength of nature

• Nature helps us to explain the way criminals think in terms of biological theories which can be proven with hard evidence. There are also evolutionary theories which can be applied to studies to explain, for example, why people turn to crime. For example the study by Brunner showed that genetic variation may be responsible for causing differences in an individuals level of aggression which may lead to violent crime. In the case of the family studied, they had a point mutation which affected their serotonin metabolism. All of this can be proven in a laboratory which is a strength of nature studies with regard to crime because we have falsifiable evidence

Strength of nurture

Weakness of nature

• It is a statistical fact that crime is higher in some areas of towns and cities than others. By collecting various factors that influence criminal behaviour we can try to build a picture of effects that come together as triggers of violent acts. The ideas of nurture allow us to use early prevention techniques which are useful in preventing crime. Unlike in nature studies where they can only identify the problem, nurture is used to provide useful results. An example of this is in the Farrington study of crime in families where he/she concludes the main risk factors are criminality in family, poverty, and poor child-rearing. This information can be used in early-intervention programmes which is a strength of nurture because it shows how it is useful.

• Although nature can help us to explain various aspects of crime, it lacks usefulness which means we cannot do anything to prevent more crime in the future. We can identify genes on a chromosome that may lead to aggressive behaviour such as the warrior gene, but that doesn't give us any solution to how to deal with people that have the gene. This is illustrated in the study by Price et al who proposed that males with an extra Y chromosome were predisposed to be violent criminals, but since it is in their genes, we cannot remove this predisposition to crime. This shows how the nature debate lacks the ability to be useful.
• On the other hand, there is the option of genetic screening which would tell us who has certain violent genes, however this would cause discrimination to people who may not actually turn into criminals.

Weakness of nurture

• The nurture argument argues that the upbringing of a person will affect their chances of becoming a criminal, however it doesn't take into account extraneous variables that could affect their chances, making it reductionist. For example the Peterborough Youth Study found that youths in disadvantaged neighbourhoods are more likely to commit crimes as they have a reason to: e.g. they need to steal food for their family. But, it doesn't take into account that perhaps some people in disadvantaged neighbourhoods don't commit crimes and those that do could be doing it because they have a gene which predisposes them to this type of behaviour. This shows how the nurture argument is reductionst as it doesn't take a holistic approach to looking at crime and shows how this is a weakness of nurture with regard to crime.

By Sonam Dossani

Image by Tom Mooring