bdang
New Member
Posts: 17 
|
Post by bdang on May 11, 2016 18:38:05 GMT
In Clara Moskowitz's article, there was a correlation found between people who have some form of a mental disorder and those who end up committing crimes. People who suffer from disorders such as antisocial personality disorder have differing brain make-up than people without a disorder. With this being linked to some criminals having different brain structure than non-offenders, the notion of being able to predict future criminal activity in children arose. I came across a blog that I thought was interesting and relates to Moskowitz's article. Titled, "A Criminal Personality or So-Called 'Radicalization'?," the author discusses the concept and use of the word "radicalization" as it applies to criminals and terrorists. He thinks "radicalization" is often misused, believing that radicalization is an actual event that happens to a person. He argues that if there is one person from an impoverished community who becomes a criminal, that person is not necessarily radicalized because there are many others who did not follow accordingly. Rather, he argues that those who do go on to become criminals and terrorists have a biological "criminal personality" which draws them to act unlawfully. www.psychologytoday.com/blog/inside-the-criminal-mind/201603/criminal-personality-or-so-called-radicalizationThis brings up many questions. Is there such a thing as a criminal personality? If so, are we able to predict who will become future offenders based on this "criminal personality?" Do biological differences cause us to commit crimes? Also, what do you think about the use "radicalization?" Is there a misconception to what really happens in the minds of terrorists and criminals? |
|
|
|
Post by vannahyazon on May 11, 2016 20:16:38 GMT
i feel like there is such a thing as a criminal personality. but i don't know how it's exactly shown in children, like are they menaces like Ben who eat marshmallows right away, do they steal marshmallows from other children, do they follow the test people into the room sneakily to steal the source of the marshmallows? Penotypically i don't know how to discern a criminal personality, but i assume there should be some geneotypes to see in brain imaging or levels of things (wow so scientifical). It's soo hard to say that people are born criminals because we get to the nature vs. nurture argument again. Once Ben explained in Lindy's lecture that there is sort of a cup overflow kind of theory. If you have a predisposition to be a criminal (or have a mental illness) it fills that proportion of the cup and your environment can fill the rest indirectly proportional to how good and solid your life is. So if you have a high genetic predisposition to be a criminal but a highly nurturing and positive environment, your cup won't overflow and you wont fully coincide with criminal behavior and vise versa to be criminal like.
In all, i think that there definitely is a misconception to what really happens in the minds of terrorists and criminals because people are so easily rallied up in popular hate sentiment. I believe they are mentally ill and you have to take that into consideration, but it still doesn't erase or lessen what they do, but rather provide a different lens to analyze the situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by rebeccah on May 12, 2016 2:39:44 GMT
I agree with vannahyazon that there must be some genetic predisposition to criminal behavior, but it's not always acted on. Just as if someone has the genes for a disease, but does not actually have the disease, I believe someone can have this "criminal gene" and not act on it. It does come back to the age old nature vs. nurture argument because someone who is genetically predisposed to this behavior may not develop it later in life if they grow up in a healthy, loving, stable environment. Conversely, the same individual living in a volatile, unhealthy household may be more likely to exhibit this behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by petekk on May 12, 2016 5:09:47 GMT
I agree with Rebecca. I think most people who ahem the 'criminal genes' do not act on them. Which causes me to ask another question. Do these people not act on their genes because they have been taught by the society to not do so (they know that it is illegal/not acceptable and they would get punished for it) or because they also inherently have good in them and keep themselves from committing actions because of their own morality?
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexandre Denuit on May 12, 2016 5:29:37 GMT
I agree, but only to a certain extent. As it has been mentioned, I believe that the environment in which a child has been brought up has the biggest influence on his future behavior. Furthermore, I think that criminal behavior has to do with much more than genetics, as people who are not genetically predisposed to criminal behavior still commit crimes. For example a traumatic event in a person's life can push him/her to seek vengeance, or have a particular dislike against a group of people which make that person more "at risk". We can also relate genetics-crime to genetics-personality because people with different personalities act and react differently to events. Therefore, individuals who displays anger easily versus stoical individuals probably do not have the same chance of becoming criminals later on.
|
|
bdang
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by bdang on May 12, 2016 21:37:20 GMT
petekk In response to your question, what if people do not act upon their genes because society has helped develop their sense of morality? There are so many ways we could frame a question and seemingly answer it. I guess this really fuels the nature vs. nurture debate and depends on how people interpret certain situations. Some people would argue that people develop a sense of morality from society, so it is kind of a blend of nature and nurture. Just thought I would put it out there because it I think it really is so ambiguous and subjective.
|
|
bdang
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by bdang on May 12, 2016 21:47:24 GMT
vannahyazon rebeccah I agree with what you both said about having a predisposition but not always acting upon it. It is sort of like if it is a recessive gene. This is like when a child is labeled "at risk" due to whatever circumstances that surround them or past behavior. The label does not necessarily mean that they will not succeed in life, just that at the current moment, they are exposed to other internal and external factors that the average kid is not.
|
|
