Murder, forcible rape, aggravated assault, and robbery: these four acts all belong to the category of violent crime. All of these are illegal and punishable by law, yet continue to exist in the world and are carried out on a regular basis. Why is this?  What drives someone to commit violent crimes? The answer to these essential questions could help law enforcement agencies to determine the rudiments of these acts and with that information, the efficient movement to diminish the violent crime rate could commence.  

A person is said to behave the way that they do in conjunction with two personal factors: nature and nurture. One’s nature is described as being their own genetics and how their biological dispositions, such as mental illnesses or specific genes, affect how they act and behave. One’s nurture is that individual’s environment and learnt experiences and how those subsequently also influence their day to day activities. Although both factors play a role in shaping behavior, which one plays a bigger role and prevails over the other? Furthermore, which one has a bigger influence in creating a violent person? In the debate of nature verses nurture, an environmental catalyst such as location, childhood upbringing, or drug use, is more essential in fabricating a violent criminal compared to its counterpart of biological factors. 

As mentioned above, nurture consists of ones outside influences. This can contain, but is not limited to, peers, location, income, weather, family, or even media. Essentially, the concept of one’s nurture includes most everything besides their biological factors, DNA, and any mental illnesses. A person would not behave in the way that they do with the absence of their surroundings to influence them. Humans are impressionable creatures and are shaped by their surroundings. While one’s environment as a whole contributes to shaping a person and who they become, specific factors within said environment can be linked to specific actions. Henceforth, in this essay, we will be examining the factors of location, households / family units, and drug use and how they can each cause an individual to carry out violent crimes. 

The location of where a person resides is found to have a profound effect on their corresponding violent behavior. When comparing southern states, consisting of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware, to the rest of the country, the rate of violent crime is much higher. After examining the poverty, culture, and latitudinal coordinate, it becomes clear as to why southern states experience an influx of crime. 

Crime has been a variable associated with poverty for some time. Poverty has been shown to lead to higher levels of stress and anxiety, two factors associated with the causation of violent acts. It has also been linked to underperforming school systems, which in return can lead to an unknowing population with little job opportunities and thus rises the opportunity cost for crime commitment (Ludwig 1). As indicated by the U.S. Census, the majority of southern states lie underneath the poverty line and experience the trends listed above. 

Cultural differences between the southern states and the rest of the country also play a role in their crime rates. A theory called “The Culture of Honor,” created by social scientists Dov Cohen and Richard E. Nisbett, attempts to explain why the southern population acts in more violent measures than its northern counterparts. This theory explains that southern inhabitants are more prone to be emotionally aggravated, upset, and ready to engage in aggressive, dominant behavior than northern inhabitants. The scientists conducted three experiments to test and later prove this theory. The first consisting of insulting people of a northern home and a southern home and measuring the anger presented. The second measuring the annoyance presented by southerners and examining if it produces a genuine aggressive behavior. Lastly, the third experiment was conducted off the basis of experiments one and two. It tested to see if the insults carried out in the former experiments made the southerners feel lesser and in turn was followed by a dominant / aggressive action. Each experiment resulted in the southern participants exemplifying annoyance and aggression. The scientists used the data collected in the experiments to make the assertion that these studies “portray a greater Southern acceptance of violence for protection, honor, and maintaining control” (Melton 1). Although the study mainly focused on males, women were examined and found to not necessarily partake in such acts, they do enforce them and condition their children to act in such a way. 

The latitude of an area has also been found to be a cause for violent behavior. In Erin Piepenbrok’s thesis paper, she claims that areas with higher latitudes (such as more northern states) will have lower violent crime rates. In other words, areas experiencing colder weather are less likely to inhibit those committing violent crimes. After compiling numerous charts and graphs exemplifying the correlations with crime rates and latitudes / temperatures, her claim was proven. She states in her conclusion “The negative relationship between latitude and violent crime rate denotes there is a higher prevalence of violent crime in southern cities as opposed to northern cities. This outcome agrees with the research of Gamble and Hess indicating violent crimes are more widely reported in cities considered to be located in the southern region of the United States. It is natural to assume higher crime rates in southern cities and latitudes are simply the result of the generally warmer temperatures experienced in those locations” (15). 

The evidence found from the poverty, culture, and latitude of certain areas all playing a role in fermenting criminality supports the claim that environmental factors play a bigger role in their behavior. In each scenario, the facts found come from a biological-free perception and rely solely on the individuals nurture. 

The next element to be examined in this paper is the effect on parenting and household environments on the creation of violent behavior. It has been shown that early-childhood experiences are linked to persuading later-life behaviors, including those of a violent nature. From parenting tactics to the behavior of a parent, a child will be influenced heavily by these bodies and their respective actions. After finding many studies done on this topic, it is apparent the three main factors in childhood upbringing, which can lead to violent behavior, consist primarily of weak family bonds, childhood abuse, and family abuse. 

A good indicator of a functioning family is how close it is. A tight-knit family more than often expresses characteristics such as good communication, good parent-child relationship, and a good balance in disciplinary actions. Faults in any of these things can cause a drastic change in how a child is to be and act in future years. It has been shown in a study that families with poor communication, distant relationships, and an absence of discipline are stimulating aggressive / criminal behavior in a child’s upcoming years (Garnefski and Okama 37). 

Humans learn through experiences; they are copycats of their fellow peers, coworkers, and even bystanders. The first models most humans are exposed to and whom they’re likely to first mirror are their parents. As children, the world is essentially an unknown universe and they have but these one or two guides to trust to help them learn the ways. Parents teach children how to act directly and indirectly by expressing their believes and carrying them out through their everyday actions. If children see their parents expressing comforting actions such as hugging or kissing, the child is likely to repeat this action; they believe it’s a byproduct of said unknown universe and these actions are accepted in it. This idea is consistent with many other actions, violent ones included. If either parent is found to be abusive either towards one another or towards another person, then a child is likely to believe this act is okay and in return is more likely to commit it in later years (Miles and Carey 45). 

Going off of the exposure to abuse between a parent and another parent, abuse between a parent and a child has been shown to increase a child’s violent nature as well. In a study examining the effect of abuse on violent behavior, 50% of persons who were abused and or neglected in their childhood were found to be at a greater risk of exhibiting violent behavior and 38% more likely to be arrested for a violent crime (Widom 14). Widom also assesses the findings and states “On the whole, our findings extend the literature on delinquency and aggression by showing that physical abuse predicts subsequent violent delinquency, at least according to arrest data.…Physically abused children were also more likely to exhibit a host of other problematic outcomes, including being less likely to graduate from high school and being more likely to be fired from their job, to get pregnant or to impregnate someone while not married, and to become a teen parent. Thus, early physical abuse led not only to later violent delinquency but also to a more global pattern of violent and nonviolent dysfunction” (3). These findings support the idea that childhood abuse can bring about an overall violent future and thus, by influencing an individual based on their environment, brings about a higher likelihood of committing violent acts. 

A human learns the most during their adolescent years and is essentially formed into the person they will become. The practice of any of the three factors discussed above would increase a child’s likelihood of becoming violent. The research and correlations found between the upbringing of a child further supports the idea that environmental factors play a large role in shaping future actions. 

Over the last 50 years, drug use has skyrocketed in America. Dangerous and highly addictive drugs such as heroin, meth, cocaine, alcohol, and marijuana are found to alter one’s behavior immensely and cause the user to act in unnatural ways. Upon further glance, it is found these drugs and their sale have been the root of some of the violent occurrences in the country.

Drug-related offenses, as defined by the U.S. Department of Justice, can be offenses in which a drugs effect plays a role in the commencement of violence. In a survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 28.7% of individuals who reported using marijuana, alcohol, or cocaine were found to be partake in violent crime while those who were not using were found to partake in only 2.7% of violent crime. The Bureau of Justice Statistics also conducted a study and found that drug trafficking fuels violent crime. Out of 75 violent crime reports, 16% of them involved drugs or drug trafficking. Reasons for these violent trends can be due to competitions, disputes, and locations. “The evidence (from studies) indicates that drug users are more likely than nonusers to commit crimes, that arrestees and inmates were often under the influence of a drug at the time they committed their offense, and that drug traffic - king generates violence” (U.S. Department of Justice 3).

Drug use has been linked to numerous violent crimes. Authors Bruce Bagley and Jonathan Rosen stated in their book Drug Trafficking, Organized Crime, And Violence In The Americas Today that “The link between drug use and violence is unavoidable. The trends over the past 50 years have shown that with the presence of drugs will be undeniably accompanied with violent crime” (46). Although behavior can be thought of as a biological factor, it is ever-changing. It is easily swayed by things such as one’s mood or peers. With their behavior altering affects and abusive qualities, drugs can change an individual and make them act in radical ways. With this being said, it is consultable that drug usage is an outside factor which can lead to violence. 

The other side of this argument is built on the premise of nature prevailing nurture and having a bigger effect on individual’s behaviors. This idea’s foundation is built on the effects of biological dispositions such as mental illnesses, DNA, and personality disorders and their role in human behavior. While specific genes, such as MAOA and CDH13, and personality disorders, have been linked to violent crimes, it is near impossible for these factors to be the sole cause for acts of violence. 

Monoamine Oxidase A, otherwise known as MAOA, is a variant gene who’s responsible for less coding of the MAOA enzyme. This enzyme is to break down neurotransmitters and when it is lessened, an abundance of these transmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine, and epinephrine, is released into the brain. CDH13 is a variant of a neuronal membrane gene associated with the coding of membrane adhesion proteins. Both of these have been associated as “warrior genes” and through experiments have shown to exist in 5-10% of those committing violent crimes (Hogenboom 1). However, the prevalence of these genotypes is not enough to account for the sole reason of committing crimes. "To call these alleles 'genes for violence' would therefore be a massive exaggeration. In combination with many other factors these genes may make it a little harder for you to control violent urges, but they most emphatically do not predetermine you for a life of crime” (Hogenboom 1). 

Personality disorders and mental illnesses have large roles in shaping one’s behaviors and actions. Specific disorders and illnesses have shown that individuals containing said disease are prone to expressing more violent thoughts and even carrying out these thoughts. “Cross-sectional studies have suggested that antisocial…, avoidant…, borderline…, histrionic…, narcissistic… paranoid…, passive-aggressive…, and schizotypal… personality disorders may be associated with violent behavior among adults in the community” (Johnson 2). Similar to the genotypes MAOA and CDH13, although the possession of these mental disorders makes one more likely or vulnerable to committing such acts, it in no way is responsible for causing the acts themselves. Another study (Nilsson et al, 2006) also demonstrated that both criminal behavior in general as well as violence were influenced by MAOA genotype only in the presence of psychosocial risk factors (such as maltreatment and living in a multi-family house).

The statistics and results presented in this essay are in no way perfect predictors.

Deciding to live in New York as opposed to Georgia isn’t guaranteed to form a criminal and neither is the MAOA gene. These factors have been linked to violent crime and have the possibility of affecting one’s actions. Both nature and nurture have an effect, however what should be looked at is which has a bigger effect. The numerous nurture facts like poverty, latitude, parental advising, drug usage, along with others or the two genes and five mental disorders. 

There is no denying the effect that one’s own nature and nurture affect how they live their life and carry out their day to day actions. Both play a role into forming a person. Biological factors and environmental factors work together in conjunction yet the former must be groomed by the latter in order for it to have any real and noticeable effects. Similar to a teacher and their respective student. The student could harbor the talent to become successful in their specialized field, yet without a teacher to guide them and encourage them to practice, the student’s potential would not amount to much.  
