Catherine Genovese, “Kitty” for short, was a young woman living in New York City. The year was 1964 and she was 29 years old. While walking home late at night on the eve of March 13th, Kitty was attacked. She was brutally raped and stabbed multiple times, eventually causing her to bleed out and die. She was murdered by a man named Winston Mosely. Fast forward 50 years to the year 2017 in Columbus, Ohio. Reagan Tokes, a 21-year-old woman whom had just gotten off work was headed home. On the eve of February 8th, she was raped and shot, and was found dead in her car the following morning. Her life was taken by a man named Brian Golsby. 50 years separate these two cases and yet their commonalities are apparent. Two lives were taken due to the commencement of horrific crimes. One can only ponder, what led Winston Mosely and Brian Golsby to commit these acts? 

Murder, forcible rape, aggravated assault, and robbery: the four acts belonging 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 * 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 accordance with two personal factors: nature and nurture. One’s nature is described as * their own genetics and how their biological dispositions, such as mental illnesses or specific genes, affect how they act and behave. On the opposite spectrum, one’s nurture is an individual’s environment and learnt experiences and how those subsequently * 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 * is more essential in fabricating a violent criminal compared to its counterpart of biological factors because the way a person experiences life shapes who they become. 

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. Psychologists have theorized that humans are impressionable creatures and are shaped by their surroundings. While one’s environment as a whole contributes to shaping a person, specific factors within said environment can be linked to specific actions. Three specific factors within an setting that can be linked to causing violent actions are location, childhood upbringing, and drug use. * 

Location: where a person resides is found to have a profound effect on their corresponding violent behavior. When comparing southern states, consisting of those in the Dixie, to the rest of the country, the rate of violent crime is much higher. The examination of the poverties, cultures, and latitudinal coordinates found in this region will allow one to see* why southern states experience an influx of crime. 

Crime has been a variable associated with poverty for some time. In “Urban Poverty and Juvenile Crime: Evidence From a Randomized Housing-Mobility Experiment,” authors Jens Ludwig, Greg J. Duncan, and Paul Hirschfield examined poverty’s effects and found that it 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 increasing the opportunity cost for crime commitment (Ludwig et all 1). As indicated by “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage,” a report released by the U.S. Census in 2015, the majority of southern states lie underneath the poverty line and experience the trends mentioned above (1). 

Cultural differences between the southern states and the rest of the country also play a role in their crime rates. “The Culture of Honor,” a theory created by social scientists Dov Cohen and Richard E. Nisbett, attempts to explain why the southern population acts in more violent measures *. 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 experiment consisted of insulting people of a northern home and a southern home, and measuring the anger presented. The second experiment measured 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 first two 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. Author Brian Melton analyzed in his paper concerning the “Culture of Honor” that 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” (*1). Although the study mainly focused on males, women were examined too. It was noted that while they do not necessarily partake in such acts, they * 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 * northern states) will have lower violent crime rates. In other words, areas that lie farther from the equator will experience colder weather and in turn are less likely to contain those committing violent crimes. * 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 reinforcing criminality supports the claim that environmental factors play a bigger role in their behavior since the facts found come from a biological-free perception and rely solely on the individuals nurture. 

* It has been shown that early-childhood experiences, specifically relating to parenting and household environments, 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 them and their respective actions. After finding many studies done on this topic, it is apparent the three main factors in childhood upbringing linked to violent behavior consist * 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, a good parent-child relationship, and a good balance in disciplinary actions. Faults in * these things can cause a drastic change in how a child is to be and act in future years. It has been shown through data collected by N. Garnefski and S. Okma in 1996 that families with poor communication, distant relationships, and an absence of discipline are stimulating the likelihood of aggressive / criminal behavior in a child’s upcoming years (* CANT FIND PAGE NUMBER, DO I PUT YEAR? E.R. ). 

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 both 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 that these actions are accepted in it. This idea is consistent with many other actions, violent ones included. As expressed in the article “Genetic and Environmental Architecture of Human Behavior” by Donna Miles and Gregory Carey, 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 ( * 215). 

Similarly, 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, the National Institute of Justice reported that * persons who had been abused and or neglected in their youth were 30% more likely to be arrested for a violent crime (7). The authors of this report, Cathy Widom and Michael Maxfield, assess the findings and state “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.…* Thus, early physical abuse led not only to later violent delinquency but also to a more global pattern of violent *… dysfunction” (7). These findings support the idea that childhood abuse can bring forth an overall violent future for that individual. This will be due to accounts undergone in their youth. 

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, and in some cases, these actions can involve drugs. 

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 that these drugs and their trafficking 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 (4). Additionally noted by the Department of Justice, 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 (2). Again, noted by the Department of Justice, The Bureau of Justice Statistics * 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 (2).  Reasons for these violent trends can be due to competitions, disputes, and locations. The U.S. Department of Justice found that “The evidence (from studies) indicates that drug users are more likely than nonusers to commit crimes, [and] that arrestees and inmates were often under the influence of a drug at the time they committed their offense.”* (3)

* 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 some believe that behavior can be thought of as a biological factor, it is ever-changing and never 100% consistint. It is easily swayed by things such as one’s mood or peers. With their behavior altering affects and abuse-producing qualities, drugs can change an individual and make them act in radical ways. From this information, it is reasonable to find 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. The foundation of this idea is built on the effects of biological dispositions such as mental illnesses, DNA, and personality disorders on their role in * 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 take precedence when an individual commits violent crimes.  

Monoamine Oxidase A, otherwise known as MAOA, is a variant gene which disrupts the coding of MAOA enzyme. This enzyme is supposed to break down neurotransmitters and when it is stopped, an abundance of these transmitters such as * norepinephrine, and epinephrine, is released into the brain. Both transmitters are associated as the hormone released when experiencing stress. CDH13 is a variant of a neuronal membrane gene associated with the coding of membrane adhesion proteins. Both MAOA and CHD13 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. As stated by Melissa Hogenboom, "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” ( *1). These two genes are too minor to control how one acts. In this case, correlation does not equal causation. 

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 [mental illnesses] may be associated with violent behavior among adults in the community” (Johnson 2). Similar to the genotypes MAOA and CDH13, * the possession of these mental disorders makes one more * vulnerable to committing such acts, yet in no way is responsible for causing the acts themselves. Johnson also mentions another study done by Nisson, who 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) (2). Again, since these characteristics are too insignificant to amount to anything, they must be paired with an environmental catalyst for them to mean anything in the context of crime. 

The statistics and results * 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 abundance of evidence surrounding nurture examples 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 influence them to practice, the student’s potential would not amount to much.  
