The argument of this paper will be based on the long running debate as to whether the creation of a criminal mind is an instinct part of a man or was it brought to by the happening in the society. This paper will persuade readers in taking the side of the author. The arguments of the author will be based on her ideas, some information coming from known authorities of the said topics. A conclusion will end this paper taking into consideration the key points that have been all through out the paper.
According to the book of Curtis (1961), Aristotle said that man is a rational, social, and political animal. He further stated that the end of men’s actions is the happiness, which can be obtained thru self-sufficiency. This author believes that being good is subjective. The goodness set in the word of God is based on morality. The goodness set by the law is based upon equity and public welfare. The goodness set by the norms is taken by the way the people were brought up by their culture and traditions.
This author believes with what Sigmund Freud has stated that humans have the natural tendencies that are suppressed with the unconscious. This means that men will opt to do things not because of what they had but because the environment has let those things came out. The author is taking the side that criminal minds are brought about the nature of men.
It is right for the author to first define what the meaning of criminal is. According to Saegert and Winket (2004), criminals are those persons who are willing to interrupt poor neighborhoods by introducing fear and suspicion into relationships among neighbors. Hence, criminals are those persons who do things violently or discreetly but to the prejudice of other person. The ability of the criminals do such acts depends upon on how the circumstance will make them.
Going back to the side taken by this author, the author believes that the nature of men is the very nature of their characteristics. The act of being of a criminal depends upon the choice and the environment that they are part of.
The readers might find it confusing that this author is taking the side of NATURE, but still use the word NURTURE. To further expound the argument, the author believes that men has the on his nature the becoming of a criminal, however, the means to make it a conscious act will depend on the way it make their lives happen.
According to Nelkin and Lindee (1995), the genetics in men as regards to crime deflects attention from the need for social reform, education, and rehabilitation in tackling the violence in society. The ability of men to commit one act depends upon his instinct to do such things as a man. The rational in him will dictate how he will be able to perform an act. The ability of man will depend on how he will be able to feel for a situation. The capacity of man to do things whether bad or wrong will all be depend on the animal in him. From there, the characteristics of men are all innate in him.
Being criminal is present in the characteristics of men. The meaning of goodness as stated is subjective hence the meaning of crime is also subjective. The goodness of one’s act is subjective, hence the devil on one’s own act will be considered to be as criminal, is also subjective. Hence, all of humankind has the capacity to do all things that each of everyone in this world has been doing, however the category of all the acts of men will depend on the circumstance.
To provide an illustration, a child while playing can do all things just to control the game, the devious act of a child in controlling the game may be appear to be cute but it can be a manifestation that the child has been using his power to get what he want.
Hence, the ability to make all things happen for one’s own selfish desire means that men has really an innate capacity to do such things and the ability to make it happen will all depend with the circumstance.
The circumstances that can be considered as part of NURTURE, dictates that innate nature of men to come out. The nurture depends on the way the environment surrounding man’s act to be considered as a criminal one or not.
The dictate of the environment will put a category as to whether such acts are criminal or not. The criminal mind of one’s person is given such meaning if on the society he is living will be the considering factor as to whether his act as one. Hence, the act of man whether it is bad or not is dictated by his very nature to do it.
To further, elaborate, as stated above men do things for self-sufficiency, hence if men will act on the way what Mother Nature has designed for them, self-sufficiency will depend on their environment. If the environment will dictate that they are not sufficient enough then they will try to do things in accordance to their own will and innate attitude to perform any act that will make them self sufficient.
The author also stated that men do use their own choice to do things that they want. The ability to choose is also innate. According to Farrell and Bowling (1999), the ability of men to be knowledgeable to understand the great deal about the conditions and consequences of what they act or perform to their everyday life is part of being human. Hence, the ability of men to choose what they should act is part of the reason why there are men who are criminals and not.
As being rational and the ability to do actions is part of the innate characteristics of men, all the consequences of their choice and actions are all product of their natural tendencies. The choice to do things will all depend with the environment. However, the dictate of the environment is not the whole factor why men do such things, if will all depend on his choice. Hence, the environment will just give the reason to act on any matter but the real capacity and the ability.
According to the Raine and Veneble (1992), the convergence of results from familial, adoption, and twin studies provides very strong evidence for the role of genetic factors in the genesis of antisocial behavior. Hence, genetically in relation to the very nature of men has given a probative value to the argument of the author that being criminal is a product of the innate tendencies of men.
For conclusion, men’s criminal act depends on their nature. The author considered such act innate characteristics because men were given the capability to do all things and the choice to act or not. The role of the environment is just part of the reason for men to do it, but still the choice to do such will all depend on their ability to act.
The tendencies of men’s actions are all attributed to being emotional, rational, political animal. The dictate of the society to provide a category on men’s actions as criminal or not is also subjective. The wrongness of one’s act will not be bad at all, if men will do that in order to achieve self-sufficiency. .
REFERENCES:
Curtis, M. 1961, The Great Political Theories Vol. 1, Avon Books, New York.
Farrell, S., Bowling, B. 1999, “Structuration, human development and desistance from crime’. British Journal of Criminology, 39, 252-268.
Nelkin, D., Lindee, S., 1995 The DNA mystique: The gene as a cultural icon. New Freeman, York.
Raine, A. and Veneble, 1992, ‘Antisocial Behaviour: Evolution, Genetics, Nueropsychology’, Handbook of Individual Differences: Biological Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 288-323.
Saegert, S. and Winket, G., 2004, ‘Crime, Social Capital and Community Participation’, American Journal of Community Psychology, vol.34.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment