Criminal behavior: nature versus nurture

Criminal Behaviour

Chapter I Introduction

Review of Researched Considerations

Chapter III Conclusion

CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR'S ROOTS

Very simply, the law treats man's conduct as autonomous and willed, not because it is, but because it is desirable to proceed as if it were."

Not So Simple

Has the jury reached a verdict?"

Yes and no, your Honor. Although we, the jury, acknowledge the defendant did commit the crime and deserves a 'guilty' verdict, we find the defendant 'not guilty', as we do not feel he should not be held accountable for his criminal behavior. Due to evidence presented regarding his genetic make-up, along with evidence revealing the defendant experienced a horrendous environment while growing up, we are convinced his actions were beyond his ability to control them. His genetic make-up and environmental background eroded his ability to behave in response to his free will." Although the introductory anecdote serves as a satirical depiction of a not likely to occur experience, some scientists argue that, "due to their genetic make-up and environmental background, some individuals "may be less able to refrain from breaking the law than others."

Along with recent investigations in the field of genetics, which challenge the theoretical assumption of individual, voluntary choice regarding criminal behavior, evidence citing that environmental factors contribute to criminal behavior also routinely arises. In the 2005 journal article, the "Abuse Excuse" in Capital Sentencing Trials: Is it Relevant to Responsibility, Punishment, or Neither?, for example, Litton recounts a poignant account of one man convicted and sentenced to prison for his criminal behavior.

He]... was beaten nearly every day of his young life with a switch from a tree or with a belt, was regularly locked in his room, where his parents had removed the handles from the door and installed several locks on the outside of the door and boarded up all the windows. They would leave him in there for days at a time, forcing him to urinate and defecate on the bedroom floor, something for which he would then be punished. He cried and begged to be let out and would become so claustrophobic that he almost asphyxiated several times from the panic attacks that he experienced. The punishment only escalated. As he got older his parents made him do pushups while they held a hunting knife under his chest, as motivation to keep him from faltering.

Litton argues that children, such as the defendant presented in the above account, who are severely abused and neglected, tend to be more likely to commit violent crimes as adults. In a trial, he stresses, jurors can benefit from hearing evidence that can provide a psychological look into the defendant's past. In turn, jurors are empowered to make more knowledgeable decisions.

The Supreme Court has held, Litton reports, that capital defendants have a right to present evidence of their childhood and that their Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires their attorneys make reasonable investigations into their background, unless it is reasonable not to.

Part of the Human Condition

Researchers who investigate causes of criminal behaviour regularly arrive at conclusions that may counter or complement those Litton purports. In the 2006 journal article, Revisiting the Legal Link between Genetics and Crime, Denno challenges the common stereotype of an individual's "genotype" or "genetic constitution" being static, that a "crime gene" that "hard-wires" particular individuals to participate in criminal behaviours. He argues that although this contention proves popular in public, it does not elicit concrete scientific support. Instead, Denno argues, "an overwhelming amount of evidence shows that "environments influence gene expression."

Despite research challenges and differing stances regarding evidence presented in the courtroom, the study of crime, as well as, "digging" for root causes of criminal behavior continues to be a part of the human condition. "Criminology," defined as "the study of crime, criminal behavior, and its prevention, has been a part of the human condition since Cain murdered his brother, Abel."

In light of this human condition, along with the contemporary debate regarding whether genetics or environment cause criminal behavior, the hypothesis for this study contends: If criminal behavior cannot be attributed solely to an individual's genetic make-up or entirely to his/her environmental influences, then criminal behavior stems from multiple roots. As this researcher aims to confirm the validity of this study's hypothesis, the following research questions contributing to this contention, help keep the focus for this study intact.

How does a person's genetic make-up impact criminal behavior?

Does an individual's environment contribute to his/her likelihood to engage in criminal behavior?

What "roots" do research suggest potentially stimulate growth of criminal behavior in an individual?

Since the late nineteenth century, at least, courts and prisons appeared to attempt "to discriminate between the innately criminal and those who acted merely by force of circumstance, whose crimes would not pose a future danger to society," Beecher-Monas and Garcia-Ril report.

Predictions of an individual's future criminal behavior, consequently has became a vital focus for the criminal justice system. As a result, this consideration currently dominates death penalty sentencing determinations, as well as, sexually violent predators' commitment proceedings. Even though some researchers argued in the past that genetics do not impact the shaping of antisocial and criminal behavior, increasing research findings serve to corroborate that genetic factors prove as vital to some forms of criminal activity's development as environmental factors. Too many past and current studies in numerous countries, utilizing a variety of methodologies, "converge on the same conclusion," Owen D. Jones argues, to deny the fact that in regard to human behavior: "genes do play a role."

Other, likely less controversial, fields of behavioural trait research identified heritability of numerous psychiatric disorders, including autism, schizophrenia and reading disability. In addition, personality traits such as political conservatism are noted as heritable. Criminal behavior, specifically recidivistic crime, researchers expect, is also influenced genetic factors, in some manner. During this study effort, this researcher aims to explore literature by those who perceive behavioral genetics causes criminal behavior, along with those who purport environmental components to contribute to the cause, as well as, those researchers who argue that neither serves as the concrete cause. The end result of attributing a trait solely to genetic factors suggests more consideration ought to be attributed the weight carried by choices individuals make, and not take the "blame away from environmental factors created by society."

Reasonable Investigations

In the journal article, Misinformation, Misrepresentation, and Misuse of Human Behavioral Genetics Research, Kaplan (2006) notes: "Researchers interested in understanding either the causes of variation in human behaviors or how human behaviors develop are at a disadvantage compared to researchers interested in answering similar questions associated with nonhuman organisms."

Reasons include:

Ethical restrictions on human experimentation make a number of experiments, standard in other model organisms, impossible to perform on humans.

Human development constitutes a slower process than that of traditional model organisms, such as nematode worms, fruit-flies, mice, etc., utilized in behavior studies.

As Caitlin Jones examines the different functions that genetics and the environment play in the criminal behavior of individuals, he notes that research states: "it is more often an interaction between genes and the environment that predicts criminal behavior. Having a genetic predisposition for criminal behavior does not determine the actions of an individual, but if they are exposed to the right environment, then their chances are greater for engaging in criminal or anti-social behavior."

Chapter II: Review of Researched Considerations trait can have a heritability of one hundred percent in one developmental environment, but a heritability of zero percent in another."

Research Rationale and/or Reasons Along with humans having a longer lifespan, Kaplan notes as one of the reasons "researchers interested in understanding either the causes of variation in human behaviors or how human behaviors develop are at a disadvantage compared to researchers interested in answering similar questions associated with nonhuman organisms," the gamut of human behavior is larger, with individual's behaviors of interest generally more complex than those of other model organisms. Despite these disadvantages, active research programs in human behavioral genetics reportedly continue to improve. As Kaplan studies a sampling of limits of human behavioral genetics research, he particularly focuses especially on ways these limits affect the reasonableness of three research interpretations, along with ensuing results of studies.

Basically, Kaplan notes, numerous factors contribute to developmental environments. They may be inherited from the persons' ancestors, found in the world, or created by the person. Human behavioral genetics research focuses on the variations in human behavioral tendencies and questions whether people, more prone to violent behavior, likely carry the same genes. Some researchers interested in behaviors, such as languages, that do not vary significantly, and develop regardless of environment, wrestle with the dilemma of how specific traits are produced in normal development. Kaplan's study aims to discover particular pathways and biological systems that control behavior such as, genes and environment, with universal outcomes. In their 2003 qualitative study of binge drinking among 18- to 24-year-olds, entitled Drunk and disorderly, Engineer, Phillips, Renuka, Thompson, and Nicholls stress: "The relationship between alcohol consumption and crime and disorder is far from straightforward." These authors purport that although mood and behaviour may constitute a vital part in disorderly outcomes of drinking scenarios, other social factors can equally contribute influences. These factors, according to these authors, can be categorized by the following factors:

the attitude and motivations that young binge drinkers bring to drinking, the social and peer group norms under which they operate, and features relating to the drinking environment.

Reasonable Investigations

In the journal article, Misinformation, Misrepresentation, and Misuse of Human Behavioral Genetics Research, Kaplan (2006) notes: "Researchers interested in understanding either the causes of variation in human behaviors or how human behaviors develop are at a disadvantage compared to researchers interested in answering similar questions associated with nonhuman organisms."

Reasons include:

Ethical restrictions on human experimentation make a number of experiments, standard in other model organisms, impossible to perform on humans.

Human development constitutes a slower process than that of traditional model organisms, such as nematode worms, fruit-flies, mice, etc., utilized in behavior studies.

As Caitlin Jones examines the different functions that genetics and the environment play in the criminal behavior of individuals, he notes that research states: "it is more often an interaction between genes and the environment that predicts criminal behavior. Having a genetic predisposition for criminal behavior does not determine the actions of an individual, but if they are exposed to the right environment, then their chances are greater for engaging in criminal or anti-social behavior."

Environment...Enviornment...Environment

An excuse represents a legal conclusion that the conduct is wrong, undesirable, but that criminal liability is inappropriate because some characteristic vitiates society's desire to punish him. Excuses do not destroy blame... rather they shift it from the actor to the excusing conditions.... Acts are justified; actors are excused. (ROBINSON, supra note 46, [section] 25(d), at 100-01, cited by Chiu.

During an individual's first few years in life, in keeping with instructions from the genes, basic brain material is produced. The brain refashions itself, Weyant states, and its connections according experiences it encounters in its environment.

In the 2007 revised report of the 2006 study, the impact of diet on anti-social, violent and criminal behaviour, Benton, explores the role of diet in anti-social behavior, particularly noting double-blind placebo-controlled trials. Although the pattern proved individual to the child, results portrayed children potentially responding to a wide range of food items.

Benton found:

elimination diets reduced hyperactivity-related symptoms,

Supplementation with poly-unsaturated fatty acids decreased violence...." No evidence of an influence on hyperactivity, however, was noted.

Benton reports that vitamin/mineral supplementation reduces anti-social behavior and that findings from research correlates a tendency to develop low blood glucose and aggression. A number of idiosyncratic responses to diet, albeit, evolved from a broad range of foods interacting with personal physiological dissimilarities. As participants share a common behavioural designation or diagnosis, Benton did not observe responses in all members of the chosen groups.

Benton reports well-controlled studies confirm the following factors regarding food intolerance and anti-social behaviour:

number of children, diagnosed with ADHD and related diagnoses, experience adverse reactions to particular foods.

The most common problem foods include dairy products, wheat, and chocolate,

No particular pattern of foods for a particular response, however, can be confirmed as individual responses vary.

All members of selected groups did not experience reactions as participants share ADHD or another common behavioural designation.

Varying Considerations include:

Informant

Sex relative importance of genetic and environmental factors may vary for different measures

In their 2007 study of 605 families of twins or triplets, "Genetic and Environmental Bases of Childhood Antisocial Behavior: A Multi-Informant Twin Study," Baker, Jacobson, Raine, Lozano and Bezdjian present their work as "the first study to demonstrate strong heritable effects on ASB in ethnically and economically diverse samples." As the authors purposed to evaluate "rater effects on the genetic and environmental influences on a shared view of antisocial behaviour," they find that parents, children, and teachers possess only a partial "shared view" view of a child's antisocial behavior. Ancillary factors also influence the factors noted by various informants.

Baker, Jacobson, Raine, Lozano and Bezdjian analyzed measures of conduct disorder, aggression ratings, delinquency, as well as, psychopathic traits, accessed through child self-reports, teacher, and caregiver ratings. Their multivariate analysis revealed a common ASB factor across informants that was strongly heritable (heritability was.96)...." These authors' findings consistent with the meta-analysis by Rhee and Waldman (2002), which found that shared environmental influences on ASB were higher for parental reports than for child self-reports.

Litton purports that a connection exists between responsibility and the ability to use practical reasoning in the subjects of law and morality. As criminal law provides rules for a person's behavior and the consequences of violating those rules, the law assumes an individual is capable of understanding the rules and the consequences. This serves as one means to discourage individuals from engaging in law breaking practices. Sometimes, however, a person considered criminally insane may not be capable of recognizing and assessing reasons for obeying the law, and making choices in light of their assessments. Excessive and extensive abuse often generates insanity contributing to this dearth of reasoning.

Reasonable Investigations

Genetics...Genetics...Genetics

Even if genetic differences offer insight as to the reasons for individuals' behavior, genetic differences construe only one part of the scenario, Farahany and. Coleman conclude. In their 2006 behavioral geneticists' studies of antisocial or criminal behavior, genetic differences did not account for thirty-eight to eighty-eight percent of the observed behavioral variation in the study population. These authors discuss practitioners' efforts to utilize behavioral genetics evidence in U.S. criminal law cases. They also explore how behavioral genetics and the theoretical concept of criminal responsibility compare in the U.S. criminal justice system. As a matter of criminal law theory, Farahany and. Coleman contend, regardless of scientific progress in the behavioral genetics' field, such evidence does not contribute much value in assessing criminal responsibility.

The root causes of delinquency, maladaptive and antisocial behavior, crime and violence have been debated for decades," Bitsas, reports. Some posit that behavior disorders evolve from a number of negative life experiences, including being abused as a child, lack of love, bad parenting, poverty and, broken homes and poverty. During the past decade, albeit, "scientific research has shown that imbalances in neurotransmitters, their precursors, and other biochemicals and nutrients can significantly contribute to severe behavior disorders and violence. Even more compelling is the growing number of studies demonstrating that behavior can be enhanced through nutrient supplementation and dietary changes."

Litton argues that children who are severely abused and neglected tend to be more likely to commit violent crimes as adults. In a trial, he stresses, jurors can benefit from hearing evidence that can provide a psychological look into the defendant's past. In turn, jurors are empowered to make more knowledgeable decisions.

The Supreme Court has held that capital defendants have a right to present evidence of their childhood and that their Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires their attorneys make reasonable investigations into their background, unless it is reasonable not to.

Engineer, Phillips, Renuka, Thompson, and Nicholls point out that in regard to binge drinking among 18- to 24-year-old attitude, motivations and social and peer group norms often relate to their age group's specific experiences, values and lifestyles. Similarly, this researcher purports, in regard to some criminal activities, the behaviour may correlate to the experiences, values and lifestyles common their age group.

Morse, who explores an addict's relation to his/her criminal responsibility, stresses that the "discovery of genetic or of any other physical or psychosocial cause of action" does not contribute any additional issues regarding responsibility, and discovery of such causes. Nor does it, per se, develop an excusing or mitigating condition for criminal behavior or other conduct. As addiction inescapably involves human action, in turn it is subject to moral evaluation. Essentially, by compromising rationality, addiction could contribute to condition warranting mitigation or excuse. Good reason exists to perceive most addicts are responsible for their seeking-and-using behavior. Similarly, addicts are responsible for other immoral or criminal activity related to addiction. Even though human behavioral genetics may enhance the understanding of human behaviour, Farahany and Coleman note, it provides only a minute amount of relevance for assigning responsibility in the criminal law. Behavioral genetics, however, does not support genetic determinism. Instead, this science exposes "a complex interaction of biology and the environment that gives rise to behavioral differences between individuals." As it may provide "moral relief for stigmatized conditions," for individuals in some cases, behavioral genetics research can contribute to criminal behavior being considered to be caused by human biology, instead of "a conscious choice of moral depravity."

Similarly, attributing a trait solely to genetic factors, "a reductive and determinist view of behavioral genetics research can also shift blame away from environmental factors created by society." Carl purports an individual's brain is the result of genetics and environment and that he and other religious individuals contend God creates the human brain. Both side of the Nature/Nurture scale, he stresses, influence a person's brain. As the brain consists of more than neurons and neurotransmitters, it relates to the mind. The mind, however, Carl emphasizes, "is not the brain; it's what the brain does." Under the subject of Behavior (Ethics), which engages a person's frontal cortex, Carl examines questions such as: "Do our genes make us bad?" And "Can we train the brain to overcome certain bad habits?" He also explores the question: "How can we have free will if all sources of bad behavior are found in the brain and someday we will have drugs to correct every form of bad behavior?" Carl cites Stephen Pinker to outline implications of neuroscience, as he shares the following:

In 1982 an expert witness in the insanity defense of John Hinkley, who had shot President Reagan and three other men to impress the actress Jodie Foster, argued that a CAT scan of Hinckley's brain showed widened sulci and enlarged ventricles, a sign of schizophrenia and thus an excusing mental disease or defect. (the judge excluded the evidence, though the insanity defense prevailed.)" Eventually, "the devil made me do it" will be replaced with "my brain's to blame."

Tom Knott, a staff writer for the Washington Times, perceives reasons other than genetics or environment as causes of criminal behavior: "Absentee parents, broken schools and the lure of the so-called "easy money" on the streets all play a part in the forming of a young criminal. " ("Crime Is a Price," 2006, p. B02)

Regarding "Rats" in the study reported exploring whether an individual's genetic make-up or his/her environment cause criminal behavior, Kaplan relates details of various ways two different types of genotypes respond to three separate developmental environments:

Rats bred under normal laboratory conditions to be either very good or very bad at running mazes show a significant difference in maze-running ability when raised in those normal conditions. However, when raised in an impoverished environment, the difference in the ability of the maze-bright rats compared to that of the maze-dull rats is not statistically significant. When raised in an enriched environment, again, there is no statistically significant difference in the maze-running abilities of the two strains.

Although the maze-dull rats show marked improvement between normal and enriched environments, the maze-bright rats show no such improvement. Similarly, while maze-bright rats do show a marked improvement between the impoverished and the normal environments, the performance of maze-dull rats is unchanged. The maze-running ability of these rats show significant plasticity with respect to the environment in which they are raised; neither kind of rat performed equally well in all the environments. Further, the two populations display plasticity under different environmental conditions. The maze-dull rats show little plasticity in performance between impoverished and normal environments, whereas the maze-bright rats show significant plasticity in that range. The maze-dull rats, however, show significant plasticity in performance between the normal and the enriched environments, whereas the performance of the maze-bright rats is unaffected by that variation. In all three environments the rats' behavior displays a strong gene-by-environment interaction effect. That is, variation in the performance of the rats cannot be accounted for by simply adding the overall effects of the environmental variation and the overall effects of the genetic variation. Rather, different genotypes interact differently with the various available environments.

So what is the heritability of maze-running ability in these rats? The question simply cannot be answered without more information-in fact, the question does not make sense unless one knows the environments and structure of the two rat populations.

In a similar, yet completely contrary sense, the role of genetics or environment in regard to human criminal behavior cannot be confirmed in a normal laboratory environment. Just as "a trait can have a heritability of one hundred percent in one developmental environment, but a heritability of zero percent in another," a trait can conceivably connect with genetics or environment, this researcher purports, in similar ways. Joyce Howard Price, staff writer for the Washington Times, notes the study from the study participants in the Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman, Mississippi, "one of the largest prisons in the United States, with 5,500 inmates," found that 74% of inmates, who do not believe in a higher power engaged in at least one fight each month. Fifty-three of inmates in this study, however, report they do believe. Price also found that inmates believing God's law determines right and wrong were noted to be 58% less participate in one or more fights each month.

Chapter III: Conclusions

The findings of the next generation of behavioral genetics may have stronger implications for moral evaluation than for practical intervention."

Hard Work Ahead in assessing criminal responsibility.

Despite past, current and most likely future controversy regarding fields of behavioral trait research, specifically in regard to criminal behavior, particularly recidivistic crime, research will likely continue.

Any given gene will affect many different behaviors, in part by affecting many different neurons. Because of this fact it would be incredibly difficult to pinpoint exactly how genetics affect behavior. A highly heritable trait in one environment may have an extremely low heritability in another one.

As noted by Kaplan, much more knowledge is needed in the realm of genetics and their role behavior. This researcher also contends that genetics are certainly not the only component that determines a person's behavior. Consideration of the roots of behavior, including criminal behavior, must also include among its repertoire, environment and heredity.

Litton and Morse appear to be on opposite sides of the issue regarding whether a person may or may not be "excused" for his/her criminal behavior due to genetics and/or environment. Litton, as noted during the literature review purports that not only does environment contribute to criminal behavior, consideration and/or leniency needs to be allotted when it adversely impacts an individual's free will. The reasoning Morse presents, on the other hand, appears to confirm the argument that an individual, despite environment and/or heredity, is responsible for criminal activity [when related to addiction]. Engineer, Phillips, Renuka, Thompson, and Nicholls point out that in regard to binge drinking among 18- to 24-year-old attitude, motivations and social and peer group norms often relate to their age group's specific experiences, values and lifestyles. Similarly, this researcher purports, in regard to some criminal activities, the behaviour may correlate to the experiences, values and lifestyles common their age group.

Farahany and Coleman argue that although human behavioral genetics may enhance the understanding of human behaviour, it does not provide a substantial amount of relevance for assigning responsibility in the criminal law, nor does behavioral genetics confirm genetic determinism.

From this understanding, the confirmation appears to be strengthened which purports that the complex interaction of biology and environment, not genetics alone, contributes to behavioral differences between individuals.

As Litton notes and courts recognize, suffering severe childhood abuse may be relevant in sentencing if it, in some way, causes the individual's ability to use rational self-control to be compromised or diminished. Consequently, this researcher contends, environment does in fact serve as a potential root of criminal behavior.

As noted in the introduction of this study, in the 2003 journal article, Overcoming the myth of free will in criminal law: the true impact of the genetic revolution, Jones states: "Because genetic influences on behavioral traits may raise doubts about the nature of individual free will, some scientists have concluded that various members of society may be less able to refrain from breaking the law than others."

Jones also states: "

Many scientists agree that violent behavior may be in some part traced to individual genetic makeup. The resulting factors of this research strikes directly at the core of the American Criminal Justice system. If an individual's genetic makeup is such that when it is stimulated by certain environmental factors the person becomes more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior then it becomes difficult to be able to define freewill as completely "free" thereby making it more challenging to appropriately sentence them for the crime committed.

This researcher agrees with Jones, as genetics play a role in criminal behavior and because "free will" in itself takes on a deeper or different meaning.

It does not, however, take away an individual's responsibility to be a law abiding citizen, nor should genetics be allowed to excuse aggressive behavior in individuals.

From research, this researcher purports that even though contributions by behavioral genetics research may proffer "moral relief for stigmatized conditions," the end result of attributing a trait solely to genetic factors suggests more consideration ought to be attributed the weight carried by choices individuals make.

Depends on Beecher-Monas and Garcia-Ril report Predictions of an individual's future criminal behavior, consequently has became a vital focus for the criminal justice system.

As repeatedly noted during this study, no concrete consensus exits regarding the verdict of whether genetics or environment determines criminal behaviour.

Reasonable Investigations

In the 2005 journal article, the "Abuse Excuse" in Capital Sentencing Trials: Is it Relevant to Responsibility, Punishment, or Neither?, recounts a poignant account of one man

Litton argues that children who are severely abused and neglected tend to be more likely to commit violent crimes as adults. In a trial, he stresses, jurors can benefit from hearing evidence that can provide a psychological look into the defendant's past. In turn, jurors are empowered to make more knowledgeable decisions.

The Supreme Court has held that capital defendants have a right to present evidence of their childhood and that their Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires their attorneys make reasonable investigations into their background, unless it is reasonable not to.

Just as Carl purports that an individual's brain mind "is not the brain; it's what the brain does," this researcher proposes that in regard to criminal behavior, it is not absolutely genetics or environmental facts that ultimately determine criminal behavior, but what an individual does, despite their genetic make-up and/or environmental background. Robert K. Merton defines the term, Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, as "a concept developed by to explain how a belief or expectation, whether correct or not, affects the outcome of a situation or the way a person (or group) will behave. Thus, for example, labeling someone a "criminal," and treating that person as such, may foster criminal behavior in the person who is subjected to the expectation."

Contrary to the "very simply," connotation presented at the start of this study, this researcher ultimately contends the verdict for the hypothesis for this study stands: "Yes and no."

Bibliography www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5017425010

Beecher-Monas, Erica, and Edgar Garcia-Rill. "Genetic Predictions of Future Dangerousness: Is There a Blueprint for Violence?." Law and Contemporary Problems 69, no. 1-2 (2006): 301+. Database online. Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5017425010.Internet. Accessed 16 February 2008. www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5006642298

Bitsas, Constantine. "Food for Thoughout: The Role of Nutrients in Reducing Aggression, Violence and Criminal Behavior." Corrections Today, April 2004, 110+. Database online. Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5006642298.Internet. Accessed 16 February 2008. www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104853723

Braun, Lundy. "8 Commentary," in Nature and Nurture: The Complex Interplay of Genetic and Environmental Influences on Human Behavior and Development. Edited by Coll, Cynthia Garcia, Elaine L. Bearer, and Richard M. Lerner, 139-143. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. Book online. Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104853886.Internet. Accessed 16 February 2008. www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5019164964

Bullock, Bernadette Marie, Kirby Deater-Deckard, and Leslie D. Leve. "Deviant Peer Affiliation and Problem Behavior: A Test of Genetic and Environmental Influences." Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 34, no. 1 (2006): 29+. Database online. Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5019164964.Internet. Accessed 16 February 2008. www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5022133183

Carl, William J. "Brains, Bodies Beliefs, and Behavior." Cross Currents, Spring 2007, 51+. Database online. Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5022133183.Internet. Accessed 16 February 2008. www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5018906736

Chiu, Elaine M. "Culture as Justification, Not Excuse." American Criminal Law Review 43, no. 4 (2006): 1317+. Database online. Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5018906736.Internet. Accessed 16 February 2008. www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104853723

Coll, Cynthia Garc'a, Elaine L. Bearer, and Richard M. Lerner. "Introduction Nature and Nurture in Human Behavior and Development: a View of the Issues," in Nature and Nurture: The Complex Interplay of Genetic and Environmental Influences on Human Behavior and Development. Edited by Coll, Cynthia Garcia, Elaine L. Bearer, and Richard M. Lerner, xvii-xxii. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. Book online. Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104853739.Internet. Accessed 16 February 2008.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy." In the Columbia Encyclopedia 6th ed., edited by Lagasse, Paul. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007. Database online. Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=112885206.Internet. Accessed 16 February 2008.

Crime Is a Price Paid for Failed Public Schools." The Washington Times, 20 July 2006, B02. Database online. Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5015706649.Internet. Accessed 16 February 2008. www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5017425001

Denno, Deborah W. "Revisiting the Legal Link between Genetics and Crime." Law and Contemporary Problems 69, no. 1-2 (2006): 209+. Database online. Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5017425001.Internet. Accessed 16 February 2008.