Discussion of Whether a Criminal is Born Or Made

Introduction

The statement 'A criminal is 'Born' and not made' suggests the idea that a person's birth decides whether they will be a criminal without any other deciding factors. It takes away the idea that environmental factors have anything to do with a criminal's pathway in life. This essay will explore different views and opinions on crime from a Marxism and functionalist approach. It will look at the biological factors of crime and how they affect people, including various studies, and then how these are demonstrated in the media. Crime is an action or activity that violates laws set in place by government legislation. It is the violation of any law that can result in injury to a person or persons of the public. Committing a crime can result in two common forms of punishment, such as fines or a prison sentence. Deviance can be a behavior that does not violate an official law but is considered not normal; it is usually when someone strays away from the social norm, especially in a social or sexual way, and will mostly result in no more than disapproval from other members of society.

Marxism and Functionalism Approaches

Firstly, the approach of Marxism offers an early look into crime. It was first developed by Bonger in 1916 and expanded upon by writers such as Chambliss in 1975. This group of people believes that crime is a response to capitalism and that capitalism itself is a crime. Marxism states that crime is decided by the upper class to benefit them and keep the majority in control. It references crime and deviance as a response to fight back against the upper class. However, they say that the common person doesn't realize that is what they are doing (Moore, 2016). This view presents a biased look at the so-called class war in society, the idea that the upper class is out to get the middle class and that the rules are different for each class. It implies the idea that crime is punished more harshly in the middle class while the upper class can get away with more serious crimes.

The next view is functionalism; this is a range of theories none of which have any hard evidence or research backing them. They come from a man named Durkheim, who believes that crime is an essential part of society. He theorizes that crime is an important and healthy part of society and a driving force for social change. He states that the only time it becomes a problem for society is when crime rates are unusually high or too low. His theories suggest that high crime and deviance lead to chaos, while low crime and deviance lead to no change. While this theory could be considered more accurate than the Marxism point of view, it is also highly debatable as not all crime and deviance can be used for social change. For instance, acts such as rape cannot be justified to a victim, and murder is also never a good thing. Thus, to say crime is healthy can be insensitive and unjustified.

Biological Factors of Crime

The biological approach to crime is a view that narrowly suggests crime can be explained through genes, hormones, and chemicals in your body. The main assumptions of the biological approach are that any number of biological and biochemical factors that you inherit from birth can lead to you committing a crime, such as genetics, neurotransmitters, and hormones (Newburn, 2007). Crime can be shared through genetics. There have been many studies over the past few decades testing the impact of biological factors in criminals. One of the more known is the twin studies. One of the most sophisticated versions of these studies was carried out in Denmark by Karl O Christiansen in 1974. He took 3,586 pairs of twins between the years 1881 and 1910 and monitored them. Through his research, he found that 50% of MZ (monozygotic) twins would both be criminal if one twin partook in criminal activity, while in DZ (dizygotic) twins, only 20% would both partake in crime if the other twin was involved (Newburn, 2007, p. 135). While these results on the surface definitely show some correlation to the argument that crime is born, it also has too many variables that can conflict, such as both twins growing up together. Thus, their social life could have made them both criminal, or the influence of one twin could impact the other rather than it being simply in their genes. Christiansen himself admitted that this study was inconclusive as it was impossible to rule out other factors. Additionally, if crime were 100% made and caused by your biology, then these results should show that in MZ twins, if one is criminal, both should always be criminal as they share the exact same genes.

Another biological factor to look at is hormones. It has often been assumed that testosterone is a cause of higher aggression and violent activity, explaining why there are more male criminals than female. There was research conducted which found a correlation between high levels of testosterone and criminal violent offenses. The research consisted of over 4,000 males from the military and found that there is a link between testosterone and criminal offenses. However, when they controlled this experiment and allowed for social factors, the numbers lowered noticeably. Other research has also linked abnormally high levels of testosterone in male sex offenders, although there are often other variables involved. These studies and research confirm that there is a relation between some biological factors and how likely you are to become a criminal. However, it does not prove that all criminals are made, as if this were the case, the results would need to show that social and environmental factors did not alter the likelihood of males with high testosterone becoming criminals. If it were simply in the hormone, you would not be able to alter that socially.

Crime in Media

The news/media often portrays crime as mostly born and not made, supporting the statement above. Most articles are about chemical fixes such as these. For example, two separate cases of chemical castration: one case involved a man who was having violent fantasies of rape and murder and volunteered to get himself chemically castrated, and another where they talk about in Russia and other places it is mandatory for convicted pedophiles to be chemically castrated. They do this because it lowers the chance of them reoffending. The fact that it lowers the chance of reoffending shows a strong supporting argument for the born argument of this debate. However, it is not complete confirmation that it is all biological, as it only lowers the chance of reoffending, not eradicating it completely. This proves that even after the hormones supposedly causing it are gone, in some, the nature is still there to do it again. On the other side, there are some stories that back the nurture side of this debate, such as the article by Bethan Bell, where she concludes that most child killers are created by bad childhoods, neglect, and even fear. The evidence in this case shows that nurture is a big part, if not the main reason, why children become killers. This is more evidence on how killers cannot simply be born.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while there are definitive links between biology and crime, there is no confirmation beyond reasonable doubt that it is the only factor in creating a criminal. While examining some of these studies and their results, it seems almost unavoidable that all biological factors are still influenced by social factors. This alone proves that a criminal cannot simply be born or at least not in every case. In my opinion, it is unarguable that crime is not merely created by either one of these factors but rather a combination of both. After reading some of the different views, such as Marxism and functionalism, it seems to me that when you look at crime, it is important to get a wide range of views rather than just picking one. If you do this, you are limiting yourself to one sometimes biased perspective, and you can't formulate an accurate or detailed picture. To me, this is why it is important to gather evidence and research from different areas before formulating an answer.

References

Moore, S. (2016). The Impact of Class on Crime and Deviance. Sociological Studies.

Newburn, T. (2007). Criminology. Routledge.

Christiansen, K. O. (1974). Twin Studies in Criminology. Denmark: Aarhus University.

Bell, B. (n.d.). The Making of a Child Killer. BBC News.