Crimenogenesis

Criminogenesis: Is the Criminal Born or Made?

Social factors were thought to be one of the main causes of crime, but now according to new studies, there just may be a link to genetics. Genetics are thought to play a much more essential role in the matter of mentally disordered criminals. The tie to these genes is not absolute, but just makes the person at a higher risk to become a criminal if their parents were. The study found that the genes may not be the direct cause of crime, but the tendencies and behaviors that they cause the individual to have usually lead to the criminal activities. There have been about studies to discover whether or not genetics plays a large part in crime which experimented with twins. When all the studies are looked at together, the findings show that genetically identical twins are more likely to commit crimes than dizygotic twins (twins from two separate fertilized eggs). Another study of genetic causes of crime used adopted children separated at birth. This was done to isolate the genetic factor, and to use new parents as the environment. These studies have been conducted in the countries of the United States, Sweden, and Denmark. In the United States study, they used a group of 57 adopted subjects, 41 of them incarcerated females. The study found that out of the 57 test subjects, 7 were convicted, as only one of the controls was convicted. The controls were matched by age, sex, and age at time of adoption. (Hansen)

In the Denmark study, which was carried out by Gabrielli Mednick, and Hutchings experimented with over 14 thousand adopted kids, ranging in age from 29-52. They also used both biological and adoptive parents. Their findings concluded that adopted sons have an elevated risk of a conviction if their biological parent had one or more convictions. If neither of the sets of parents had been convicted, only 13.5% of the sons were convicted, and if the adoptive parents had convictions, the figure rose by 1.2%. The most interesting statistic is the fact that sons who's genetic parents had convictions, while their adopted parents were never convicted, 20% of the kids had one or more convictions. (Teherani)

In my opinion, the environment plays the larger role in determining the criminal future of and individual. If loving parents and a healthy environment are applied constantly through childhood, the child has a very small chance of committing crimes. If the child never learns to commit crime from his/her parents, they will mimic what they learned. On the other hand, if the child is raised in an abusive and crime ridden family, there is a large chance that the child will turn in to a criminal.

Genetics does have a part in determining whether or not a person becomes a criminal. I would agree with the study that found that there is not a "crime gene", per say, but rather genes that cause tendencies. These tendencies are what cause the individual to have a predisposition to behavioral "trouble". These predispositions are one of the underlying causes of crime, but are not the sole culprit. An example of this is a person with a short fuse to anger as opposed to somebody with a longer fuse. If the person with the short fuse is agitated enough, they are likely to get very angry, and may commit some crime, whether it is a misdemeanor or felony. Now, put the person with the longer fuse in the same situation, and nothing at all is likely to happen.

A defendant should be competent during trial because if they are incompetent, there is no way that they can understand the punishment dealt to them. They also cannot help in their own defense, which tips the balance in the favor of the prosecution. The defendant must understand that he/she has done something wrong in order to attempt to be rehabilitated. If the person has no sense of right and wrong, it does no good to put them in to a prison and have them rot there while they still do not understand what they did wrong in the first place.

The courtroom role that the defendant plays is first to enter a plea at the committal hearing. If the person is incompetent, they may enter a plea of guilty, even though they did not commit the crime. The defendant must also be able to give his alibi as to where he really was, and if he does not understand what is being asked of him, a once credible alibi turns in to Swiss cheese, taking one more step in to convicting an innocent man. Another role a defendant must be competent to participate in is the process of plea bargaining. If the defendant is incompetent, there is no way that he will get a fair plea bargain, because he does not know what he is agreeing to. Even if his counsel believes it is a good deal, it may not be what his client wants, but there is no way to tell. Another role in which competency is important is if the defendant were to take the stand in his own defense. When a person gets on the stand to attempt to clear his name, they must be very careful as to not implicate themselves further by pleading the Fifth Amendment when necessary. If the person is not competent, they would not be able to differentiate between questions he must answer and questions not to answer.

Not Criminally Responsible and Incompetent are two very different

...