As I sat in the lobby of a Medford, MA Hyatt Inn to eat my complementary breakfast, I noted a stack of Wall Street Journals laying upon the concierge's desk. After discovering that I did not in fact have to pay two whole dollars for the Saturday edition, I gleefully snatched a paper and returned to my mediocre cup of coffee. Much to my surprise I found the following article which I am asking you to read and discuss for our most recent extra credit assignment.
Questions to Consider:
-Are genetics somehow connected to crime? Is it possible for one to be born a criminal ("Bad to the Bone" as George Thorogood once sang)?
-How do liberals and conservatives differ when considering the possibilities of a "criminal" gene?
-What evidence appears to support this curious theory?
-What appears to affect/catalyze one's potential criminality after birth/during childhood?
-Is Mr. Page a victim of his own DNA? His poor upbringing? Or is he solely responsible for his crime?
-Is it possible to rehabilitate or treat those afflicted with particular neurological disorders that lead to crime?
After considering these questions, please apply your conclusions to Raskolnikov. Where does he fit in this discussion?
Feel free to watch the website's video and follow the WSJ commenters for potential discussion points. Ask questions of your peers, incorporate additional sources, and engage in a fascinating conversation about the human mind.
I think that genetics and environment do contribute to someone's likelihood to commit a crime, but there is still active decision making and free will that goes along with that. Everyone makes the choice to commit a crime, and a genetic predisposition to it just makes them more likely to choose to commit a crime, or more likely for them to feel ok about committing a crime. The idea that environment plays such a big role in someone's likelihood to commit a crime is one of the issues that our society faces, especially when we consider what to do with children when they are still little but are living in these bad situations. Is it better for them to be removed from their family to try to protect them, even though this could have other physiological effects on them? And is there some way to prevent people from having more children then they can support and keep in a good environment? How far is the government allowed to go without infringing upon a person's basic human rights?
ReplyDeleteI think that DNA, poor upbringing and active decision making all contributed to Mr. Page committing his crime. He knew, at least in part, that what he was doing was wrong, even if he didn't feel guilty about it or feel emotionally that what he was doing was wrong because of his brain chemistry. However, part of the blame can also be put on the system that allowed him to be released. I think that it is partly possible to rehabilitate people, but it requires more than what we have in our jail system at the moment.Mr. Page was sentenced to 20 years in jail, and if he had been kept there that whole time, it would have been justified to try to rehabilitate him and because he already committed a crime bad enough to have been sentenced for that time. However, releasing him early, although with the potential to help Mr. Page, ended up having even worse negative consequences for an innocent woman and all those affected by her death, which is worse, in my opinion, than keeping Mr. Page in jail for more time.
Coming back to Raskolnikov, I think that he does not have a genetic predisposition to crime, since he feels extremely guilty after having committed the crime and even beforehand is very torn about whether to commit it or not. From my understanding, the people with a genetic disposition to crime have less empathy or less guilt that causes them to not think that committing the crime is bad, or stops them from feeling bad about committing the crime. Raskolnikov knows that the crime is bad and feels guilty about it, so I do not think that he has a genetic predisposition. His environment is definitely a factor, but, as we can see with Razumikhin, it does not force him to commit the crime. Raskolnikov may suffer from some sort of mental illness that affects his perception on reality, which may be a cause of his overblown ego and his idea that he is one of the "extraordinary" people, and so has the right to shed blood. However, he is fully aware of what he is doing when he commits the crime, and if this were a court case, he would not be able to defend his crimes with his brain chemistry.
Environment (i.e. society, class) is absolutely everything. Under a social system in which the means of production have penetrated everything, only the wealthiest can afford any escape from raw economic, material conditions. The rest are forced into mechanical submission or, radical crime. Mr. Page's situation, an unbearably poor, broken household, caused him to be shepherded towards violent crime - it was not a genetic pre-inclination. Any mental illness caused in his childhood was the result of "poor nutrition, [and] severe parental neglect" - not any genetic traits. The article described a family history of mental illness; this has been caused by the same horrible material conditions.
ReplyDeleteWith Raskolnikov, his inability to bear his inbetween position in Russia's 19th Century class structure leads him towards his violent crime. In part a material necessity, but mainly a mental need, Raskolnikov tries to break out by killing the Ivanovnas. Struck between the educated bourgeoisie/nobility and the raw peasants/workingmen, Raskolnikov's position is terrible, painful. He has no choice - society, not a chromosome, pushes him along in an involuntary march towards the Ivanovna flat.
There seems to be no evidence of Raskolnikov's murder stemming from genes. Despite occasional arrogance or narcissism, Raskolnikov clearly isn't psychopathic - he not only recognizes "right" and "wrong", but feels guilt - psychological repercussions for betraying his sense of morality. Instead, I believe that other "biological" factors led to his eventual killings. First off, Raskolnikov can be very protective of his family, even attempting to exclude threatening forces to his dominant role - such as Luzhin's intervention. Also, external pressures of Raskolnikov's environment factor heavily into his crimes. He feels forced to kill the pawnbroker in order to survive the harsh conditions. His environment may have also convoluted his sense of morality (though not permanently, as his guilt would show). This is not unlike Page's upbringing - namely the abuse and neglect - that diminished Page's sense of morality (coupled with his mental illness).
ReplyDeleteThere is such a variety to the factors and experiences that culminate in an individual's criminal behavior that solely blaming one of the reasons would be foolish. Raskolnikov isn't fully at fault for his crimes. In general, a lot responsibility for the prostitution and abundance of drunk vagrants should be attributed to the government's failure to carry out the law. In Donta Page's case, his unchangeable "bad" genes, mental illness, and traumatizing childhood lessen his fault. However, if he was raised in a positive environment, with a larger sense of morality, Page would become more guilty - though he should still be offered a change to be rehabilitated, especially because of his mental illness. Rehabilitation is a perfectly valid option, in my opinion, because it's been proven explicitly in the egos' dominance over people's ids, where primitive "urges" are suppressed with a society's set of standards and moral values.
It seems like there is some connection between genetics and one's tendency to commit a crime. According to the recent researches on the field of neurosciences, children of parents who have criminal records are more likely to commit a crime when they grow up. However, the article presents another significant factor: an environment where one grows up and gets constant influences. Environmental factors that influence one's criminal behavior includes an exposure to neurotoxic, such as lead, an experience of physical and mental abuse as a child, and malnutrition. Neuroscientists analyzed these factors and concluded that these factors contribute to malformation and malfunction of certain brain part that is responsible for one's moral behavior. For example, the article says that some murderers have smaller prefrontal cortex, which is the part of a brain that regulates impulsive behavior of a person. Considering all these evidences, I think the article's main point - the connection between criminals' brain anatomies and their violent behaviors - is reasonable.
ReplyDeleteI think the factor that is responsible for the Mr. Page's crime is complex matter. There is no one specific factor that is wholly responsible for the crime; it is combination of multiple factors that motives Mr. Page to commit his crime. For example, Mr. Page's own DNA is somewhat responsible for his action, but there are more things involved in his decision making. The environment he grew up, such as poor upbringing and abuses he got as a child, is also responsible, but only partly. He wasn't fully insane when he committed his murder and he was aware of his action, so Mr. Page himself is also responsible for his action. Since there are many complex factors that contributes to the Mr. Page's violent and impulsive behavior, it is impossible to define one aspect of him that is wholly responsible for his action.
I think the points that this article is making can be applied to the case of Raskolnikov. There are no textual evidence that suggests a neurological malfunctioning that affected Raskolnikov, but readers can notice that the environment Raskolnikov faces affected his decision to commit a crime. During the story, Raskolnikov faces numerous obstacles. He is suffering from poverty and he is not making any money even though he has to support his family. Also, he has this belief of an "extraordinary" who can transgress the law, and he eventually commits the murder. These problems Raskolnikov is facing affected his competence to control his impulsive behavior, so I think an environment is partly responsible for Raskolnikov's crime.
Much to my surprise, it seems that genetics actually do play a big role in molding criminals. That said however, I do not believe that people can be born criminals. Everyone can be changed from becoming a criminal no matter the circumstance. I think that liberals and conservatives differ in that conservatives believe that society will take a softer approach to crime while liberals feel that innocent individuals could be mistakenly convicted. Potential criminality is affected by the environment and physical neglect at an early age. Brain-imaging techniques back up the physical evidence of the role of genetics. Mr.Page is a victim, according to the article, of both his own DNA and unfortunate upbringing which both molded him into a criminal. he cannot be solely responsible for his crime because he has an inability to control his impulses. It is possible to rehabilitate and treat individuals with neurological disorders to try and reverse the effects of bad genes and a poor environment. Supplements and medicine can be used to tame emotional behavior of victims. Throughout the book, it seems evident that Raskolnikov has a good chance of possessing a psychological disorder which he may or may not have inherited from his parents at birth. His tiny room is an example of a bad environment and his time spent at college shows his antisocial behavior traits. Raskolnikov is a prime example of a molded criminal who was driven to murder by the various deciding factors stated previously.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I see a connection between crime and genetics, I do not believe that the "genetic flaw" should be used as an excuse for a crime. When it comes to crime, I personally take the conservative view because I believe that a criminal has to pay for their actions, "genetic flaw" or not. The people who take the liberal view on the matter supports the potential that a criminal can be innocent based on their "genetic flaw". I believe that people can be born a criminal and that unless they receive help, they don't have the mental resistance to stop themselves. I also believe in the connection between lead poisoning, abuse, poverty, criminal parents, and malnutrition all have an affect on crime.With that being said, I believe that the "genetic flaw" is curable and that it is society's job to ensure that citizens that have the symptoms of the "genetic flaw" are accounted for. As seen in the case of Mr. Page, he was recommended for psychological help 19 times by the age of 18. It is not acceptable to have a mentally weakened person not receiving the assistance that they require, especially after he was released following his first sentence. Everyone is curable to an extent from the "genetic flaw", and it is society's job to find these people and make sure they get help. When the mentally weakened commit crime, they are solely legally responsible, but society shares some of the exterior blame.
ReplyDeleteRaskolnikov did not have a "genetic flaw" and was not mentally compromised. I think that Raskolnikov was similar to a serial-killer that plans his murder our and thus has good prefrontal functioning. Although the argument that Raskolnikov had the symptoms of a mentally weakened person, being malnourished, and being exposed to lead (China in Russia had lead in it), Raskolnikov's murder was carefully planned out and executed. Also, Raskolnikov had doubts leading up to the murder and felt remorse after killing Lizavetta. Raskolnikov was sympathetic to people and would donate money. This clearly shows that Raskolnikov's emotions were not compromised, which in turn proves that he did not have a reduced ventral prefrontal cortex (regulated emotions). I thnk that comparing Raskolnikov to the criminals in the article is apples to oranges and that Raskolnikov is a special case.