Abstract
Psychologists have been for the past years interested in establishing the relationship between nature and how people are nurtured. The reason for this interest was to establish whether criminal behavior is determined by a person’s environment or their genetic composition. Studies have been conducted in regards to this ongoing debate which has given the conclusion that genes have a major role to play in determining if an individual becomes a criminal at the end or not. Other than genes, environment was cited as a contributing element of criminality as well. Evidence for a genetic basis of antisocial behavior stems from several different lines of research. Evidence for contributions of genetics to anti-social behavior originate from several studies involving families, adoption and research on twins. Additionally, these studies indicate that the factors do not happen on their own as singletons but a combination of the interaction between genes and the environment. This means that an individual may have a genetic predisposition for criminality but if exposed to a positive environment, then their chances for committing crime are low. Thus, this paper summarizes how genetics and the environment correlate to a person’s anti-social behavior.
Introduction
Interest in understanding the most severe form of anti-social behavior (psychopathy) has gained momentum in recent years. The field of psychology has experienced a paradigm shift where now in a bid to understand human behavior, psychologists look at not only the social influences, but also genetic and environmental factors as predisposing elements to anti-social behaviors. This shift could be attributed to the fact that recently, more and more people with psychological problems are finding the justice department as their new home (Bedzjian, Baker, Lynam and Raine, 2011). Bedzjian, Baker, Lynam and Raine (2011) feel that although, taking such people to jail seems like a solution at first, it presents a tight spot for the society as once such people are labelled as criminals, it causes stigmatization of individuals with mental health problems, and they may resolve to hide their issue which only comes to light when an opportunity to commit crime arises.
For this reason, society is left to wonder whether genetic testing can help reduce criminal behavior by limiting the number of children individuals who are genetically at risk of committing crime can have. Is this act ethically right and will it serve its purpose if implemented? These issues were raised in the late nineteenth and twentieth century, when researchers pinpointed genetics as the sole reason why society had murders, rapists and idiots (Bedzjian, Baker, Raine, 2009). The data collected from the investigation then, was however limited and grounded on baseless findings that raised ethical concerns as massive sterilization were carried out to rid society of the people who had undesirable characteristics (Glenn and Raine, 2014). Glenn and Raine (2014) state that the investigations suggested that genes were the only contributing factor to antisocial behavior, a claim that was later disputed when further studies revealed that environment too, was an influence of antisocial behavior.
Later, after the unethical sterilization, sociologists discovered through studies of families, twins and adoption that an individual’s personality was also affected by their environment. There was massive evident to support the idea that people can inherit certain characteristics of criminality (Glenn and Raine, 2014: Bedzjian, Baker, Raine, 2009: Bedzjian, Baker, Lynam and Raine, 2011). Nevertheless, having these genes do not automatically qualify them as criminals since their environment shapes the kind of person they turn out as adults. If the environment offers an opportunity to breed that criminality, the chances are high that the person will involve in antisocial behavior (Glenn and Raine, 2014). Consequently, this paper will explore the role played by each element, genetic and environmental factors in antisocial behavior, examine studies that seek to explain the correlation between the two and establish other risk factors such as social and biological risk elements that influence a person’s behavior.
Understanding Criminal Behavior
For one to comprehend how genes and the environment affect criminal behavior, it is essential to know what society defines as antisocial behavior. Psychologists do not determine the description of criminal activities but the justice department does. The law defines criminal activities in various ways. First, the law measures antisocial behavior in terms of delinquency and criminal activities (Glenn and Raine, 2014: Salekin & Lynam, 2014). Delinquency and criminality both discuss criminal activities but for different age groups. Adults who take part in unlawful acts can be arrested, incarnated or convicted (Salekin & Lynam, 2014: Crossley, 2015). Salekin & Lynam (2014) state that delinquent children, on the other hand, may be subjected to community service, sent to delinquent prisons for correctional services among other actions all geared towards rehabilitation of the offender. Further, the law directs that before making conclusions about criminal activities, it is important to first investigate an individual’s personality disorders that may cause them to act in a certain way (Salekin & Lynam, 2014). Such disorders include the Anti personality disorders which may increasingly put the individual at risk of committing a crime. Lastly, the legal department also suggests that it is necessary to look at personality traits that include aggressiveness, antisocial nature and impulse acting which also act as leading factors that cause individuals to commit of unlawful acts (Salekin & Lynam, 2014). These aspects will be discussed later in this paper.
What is Psychopathy
First, it is imperative to put a disclaimer that not everyone who takes part in unlawful acts is a psychopath. Psychologist have a wide arrays of methods through which they determine certain mental disorders. The diagnosis is not a one-day affair as it involves a number of tests to determine how the b rain of someone functions before they are declared as psychopaths (Salekin & Lynam, 2014). This fact presents a challenge to scientists since there are not many psychopaths in one area to study. Some people may possess certain traits that make people think that they are psychopaths yet they are not (Crossley, 2015). For instance, are all people who lie and behave irresponsibly sociopaths? Of course not, there are people who behave irresponsibly once in a while but that does not qualify them as psychopaths. It is difficult to define who is a psychopath which even makes it hard to establish if they are any traces of genetic influence in the disorder. This hurdle has however not limited researchers from finding a connection between genes and sociopathy (Salekin & Lynam, 2014: Glenn and Raine, 2014).
To define who is a psychopath is, take a look at how the brain functions. The brain is made up of neuros that send and receive messages to the brain and the rest of the body. For psychopaths, this process of sending and receiving message does not work properly. For most psychopaths, their antisocial behavior is characterized by other behaviors such as lack of remorse and empathy, egoistic traits among other mannerisms that are not socially acceptable (Crossley, 2015). Prior to this definition, the definition of what characterizes a psychopath has gone through shifts from the time of Cleckley in 1941 and 1976 who focused on boldness and disinhibition as the main themes of psychopathy (Salekin & Lynam, 2014). Salekin and Lynam (2014) mention that most psychologists focused on analyzing an individual’s meanness and inhibitions as the main qualifying factors for one to be declared a psychopath. There are authors who provide an in-depth analysis of what is psychopathy.
Glenn and Raine (2014) provide a clearer definition of those referred to as psychopaths. For the two authors, a psychopath is someone who is self-centered, thrives on manipulation and deception, focuses on self-importance and always blames other people for their failures. These people ae reckless and seem to take more risks with their lives and the lives of others. They do not seem to care much about the repercussions of their actions. The described traits of psychopathy put such individuals at a higher risk of taking involving in illegal activities (Glenn and Raine, 2014). Glenn and Raine (2014) admit that this definition explains why most psychologists try to establish if perpetrators of heinous crimes have any mental disorder before they face a trial. For example, those people who just wake up and decide to head to a school and shoot students, most of them are eventually declared as psychopaths, as no normal functioning human being would be so daring to just open fire and not even care that they will also be gunned down by police. However, this does not mean that all psychopaths display this disorder by taking part in illegal activities. Some people are high profile in the society yet they have traits of psychopathy (Glenn and Raine, 2014). Their disorder is characterized by emotional deficit.
Personality Traits and Disorders Associated with Criminality
Personality traits and disorders have lately become vital in diagnosing individuals who display antisocial behavior. These traits do not just show up in adulthood but develop gradually as someone grows from childhood to adulthood. Thus, while discussing psychopathy in adults, it is crucial to first look at the personality disorders that present themselves in childhood. Examples of such disorders include; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Conduct Disorder (CD), and Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD).