The Debate Between Criminal Nature and Criminal Nurture: William Sheldon Theory

Through his analysis, "he developed a theory of deviation from body composition that shows whether a person is a" born criminal ". (Lombroso, 2000). Compared with the criminal law, Solid has no face, head, ears like big monkey, big lips, twisted nose, and excessive asymmetrical physical features. Tibia, long arm and excessive skin wrinkles.

Criminal behavior was always the focus of psychologists, due to ancient arguments between nature and cultivation. Is the responsibility of the individual genetic make them criminals, or is the environment they grew up determining their results? The study of this discussion led to the conclusion that genes and the environment play a role in individual criminal acts. This evidence comes from many twins, families and adoption studies, and laboratory experiments. In addition, this study suggests that predicting criminal behavior is more common for interactions between genes and the environment. Although the genetic predisposition of criminal behavior does not determine individual behavior, if it is exposed to the appropriate environment, there is a high possibility of participation in crime or antisocial behavior.

Is criminal activity a product of human nature or cultivated? This is a sustained problem for many criminologists, and this argument has plagued many theorists and researchers. There are various remarkable theories in criminal science, but there is almost no exception in this dichotomy of this rigorous "nurturing" theory. Because there is increasing evidence linking social and biological risk factors to criminal behavior, it is difficult to completely ignore the impact of biology or sociology in any theory.

Its nature and cultivation: integration of biology and genetics into social learning theory of criminal behavior