Are We Born Criminal? Exploring the Nature vs. Nurture Debate in Criminology

In his 1885 publication, 'Criminologia: Studio sul Delitto, Sulle sue Cause e sui Mezzi di Repressione,' Italian lawyer Raffaele Garofalo argued that scientific study was the only way to understand the criminal mind. He named this new field 'criminology' and since its inception, theorists have struggled to answer one fundamental question—are we born criminal?

Cesare Lombroso—often referred to as the father of criminology—rejected the classical belief that crime was a personality trait of human nature. Instead, he developed a theory of anthropological criminology stating not only that criminality was inherited, but that criminals could be identified by a series of prominent physical defects which confirmed their atavistic and savage nature. In his most influential work, 'L'uomo Delinquente,' Lombroso argued that thieves could be identified by their expressive faces, manual dexterity, and small wandering eyes, while murderers had cold glass-like stares, bloodshot eyes, and big hawk-like noses. Female criminals tended to be shorter, more wrinkled, and had darker hair and smaller skulls than 'normal' women. The notion that physical appearance was innately bound to a propensity toward criminality was furthered by William Sheldon in 'Atlas of Men' (1954), in which he proposed a taxonomy for categorizing the human physique. Sheldon argued that humans could be categorized into three broad types—ectomorph, mesomorph, and endomorph—then scored within these categories to determine mental characteristics. Those with a muscular physique and athletic appearance showed greater criminal tendencies than tall, thinner people who he believed to be more intellectual. While superficially compelling, no evidence has been found to substantiate these theories, and they have since been widely discredited.

Other early theorists laid the foundations for the most prominent school of thought in the 50s and 60s—'labeling theory,' which hypothesizes that negative labels given to individuals by society actually promote deviant behavior. The origins of this theory can be traced back to Edwin M. Lemert, a sociology professor at the University of California. In 'Social Pathology: A Systematic Approach to the Theory of Sociopathic Behavior' (1951), Lemert introduced the concept of 'primary and secondary deviance.' 'Primary deviance' refers to an initial act that deviates from social norms—say getting caught for a minor traffic offense or taking stationery from work. Those that commit these acts are usually reprimanded and feel guilty enough not to replicate them. However, some go on to commit further, repeated or more serious acts—secondary deviance—and are labeled as criminals. Howard Becker further developed this notion in his 1963 publication, 'Outsiders,' claiming that while society labels people as criminals to justify its condemnation, the deviants themselves use the label to justify their criminal behavior. Essentially, they commit further criminal offenses because it's simply 'who they are.' Critics of labeling theory argue that while the label may encourage later criminal behavior, it fails to consider the influence of genetic or environmental factors that must have led to the initial crime.

Perhaps the most influential study is 'The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development' (2013), which has been following the development of 411 males since 1961. Over the 50-year period that has elapsed since the start of the study, psychologists have interviewed the test subjects nine times, moving from a focus on their school attendance, to employment and fatherhood. It was found that a significant number of delinquent youths had criminal fathers. Under 10% of children from non-offending fathers went on to become chronic offenders, whereas just under 40% of the offspring of criminal fathers went on to regularly offend. While this data, and other studies like it, strongly imply that criminal parents are likely to produce criminal offspring, it remains unclear whether this intergenerational deviance is genetically determined or largely due to the environment in which we are raised.

Various studies have also found a correlation between intelligence and crime. Moffitt et al. (1981) found that men with a lower IQ went on to commit two or more crimes by the age of twenty. Denno (1994) also tested the intelligence of nearly 1,000 children at different points in their life and found a consistent negative correlation between IQ and criminal behavior. However, others, such as Menard and Morse (1984) have claimed that the association is too weak to be considered statistically significant. Yet regardless of the extent to which intelligence affects propensity toward criminal behavior, it does appear to be a factor, which raises another question—are we born intelligent, and by extension, law-abiding? Researchers at the University of Queensland found that only up to a maximum of 40% of intelligence is inherited and the rest is determined by environmental factors. If this is true, both nature and nurture have a role to play in the development of criminal tendencies.

One area of research that tests this hypothesis compares the behavior of identical (monozygotic) twins—those sharing an identical genetic makeup—to that of fraternal (dizygotic) twins, who share, on average, 50% of the same genes. A literature review on studies into identical twins and criminal behavior found that 60% exhibited criminal behavior concurrently, whereas only one third of non-identical twins had similarly related behavior. In 'The Minnesota Twin Family Study' (2002), researchers are currently comparing monozygotic and dizygotic twins who were both raised together with those separated at birth. The study has found remarkable similarities in those raised apart—strongly suggesting that genetics, not upbringing, determines behavior and personality. However, critics of the genetic connection argue that poor research methodology and design have distorted the findings leaving us with little conclusive proof that crime is genetically determined.

So are we born criminal? While research strongly indicates a certain level of genetic predisposition toward criminality, it's clear that upbringing plays an integral role in the development of criminal tendencies. To blame our genes for criminal behavior willfully ignores a broader societal responsibility to ensure that the environment in which we're raised doesn't promote criminal behavior.

Do research findings converge concerning the correlation between intelligence and crime? Why or why not?

Research findings do not fully converge concerning the correlation between intelligence and crime. Some studies, such as Moffitt et al. (1981) and Denno (1994), have found a negative correlation between IQ and criminal behavior, suggesting that individuals with lower IQs are more likely to engage in criminal activities. However, other studies, such as Menard and Morse (1984), have argued that the association is not statistically significant enough to conclude a strong relationship between intelligence and crime. Therefore, while there is some evidence suggesting a correlation, it is not universally agreed upon in the field of criminology.