Are People Born Criminals?

In the context of forensic psychology, nature versus nurture is a longstanding debate about how some people develop law-abiding skills and attitudes while others develop attitudes and behaviors counter to societal laws. Of course, this may be a pernicious dualism—nature and nurture likely both play roles in an individual’s level of sociolegal conformity. We know that certain traits can be genetically passed down through family lines (e.g., Down syndrome, sickle-cell disease, spinal muscular atrophy). It is not a certainty that such traits will be transmitted; rather, there is a predisposition for such traits to be passed on. Similarly, it has been proven that mental disorders, such as depression and schizophrenia, have statistical correlations between family history of the disorder and the risk of genetic transmission. However, much can be done environmentally, via medications and therapy, to minimize the impact of these disorders. Along these same lines, some extreme viewpoints suggest altering the gene pool, thereby directing change in human traits and weeding out bad genes. This perspective advocates that humankind can be improved by increasing genetically desired traits (eugenics) and decreasing undesirable traits (negative eugenics) via sterilization, genetic engineering, or other methods. Do you believe that altering the gene pool is a viable strategy to improve humankind? Why or why not? What are some of the social and moral implications? Post your responses to the following questions: Do you think certain individuals are born to be criminals? Why or why not? If some people are born criminals, does society have an obligation to identify and/or eliminate the risk through eugenics? Why or why not What are the ethical, social, and moral implications of this approach? Note: Your post should be substantial (1 paragraph or more for each bullet point above), supported with scholarly evidence from your research and/or the Learning Resources, and properly cited using APA style.