Over the past few decades, biological and genetic process are believed to be the underline individual traits associated with criminal behavior. Many personality traits such as neuroticism, mental disorders and deficiencies in personality have been linked with genetics and biological functioning. Biological differences often make-up why people who are exposed to similar environments, such as poverty, develop different trajectories in life.
In certain instances, biology explains some individual behavior. At the same time, research has been slow to examine whether genetic factors may relate to involvement in fraudulent behaviors. (Beaver&Holtfreter2009) The contents in this essay will focus on biological; environmental affects and fraudulent behavior in juveniles and the correlation between the both.Biosocial Influences Biosocial Influences which is better known as biosocial criminology is defined as a general paradigm of research that analyzes all factors related to the etiology of antisocial behavior. Biological influences such as hormone levels, genetics and neurological factors are all considered in combination with environmental influences like socialization, exposure to poverty, and external sources of control. (Eichelberger & Barnes 2016) Biosocial theory of crime reflects anything that changes physically or biologically within a person that creates the potential hazard for conduct that society deems unacceptable. In juveniles it has long been a problem as to why some children commit crimes and some don’t. But there are several factors that can cause juveniles to commit crimes One factor can be nutritional deficiencies in children.
Nutritional deficiencies can increase the chance of one engaging in criminal behavior. Every human requires a certain level of vitamin and minerals for proper brain development. It is important for juveniles to receive the proper nutrition as a baby and throughout their developmental years. Without the proper nutrition the risk of criminal behavior increases as an adolescent. When parents or guardians improve their children diet quality, they are improving their mental capacity which reduces criminal behavior and it provides young adolescents with a healthier and active lifestyle.
Another factor that plays a role in juvenile delinquency is poverty-stricken environments or single-family income. When children are brought up in a poverty-stricken environment or only one income exist within a family, it may lead one to indulge in deviant behavior including: gambling, stealing or other ways to earn extra money. While this is only a few factors for deviant behaviors, there is no specific one which causes it Self-control theory (Gottfredson ; Hirschi, 1990), hypothesized, biological, psychological and social schemes, became essential in criminology. They explained that people are more likely to engage in criminal activities due to low levels of self-control. With low levels of self-control, individuals might become restless, self-centered, irritable and impulsive to physical responses, which is a temporary satisfaction rather than emotional gratification. Low self-control levels could eventually lead to deviant behaviors (Gottfredson ; Hirschi, 1990). It is the biological factor that drives us to behave in the impulsive, insensitive, risk taking, and egocentric ways, influencing all types of crime committing behaviors. In addition, social factor; such as, family factor, peer and school are considered to influence low levels of self-control.
(Gottfredson ; Hirschi, 1990; Turner, Piquero, ; Pratt, 2005). Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) noted that social factors that causes poor self-control were due to the deprivation of being trained and the absence of good parenting during childhood with the lack of good care from parents and guardians and no proper punishment after committing wrongdoings or misbehaving comes low self-control in young people. However, studies have also found that biological factor do play a crucial role in self-control and it is possible that this factor may be even more important than social factor (Wright ; Beaver, 2005).
