Is it in the Genes?

[bigboab]

A British couple, a Doctor and his wife are sueing Social Services because the two children that they adopted, or were given, have ended up in prison. Does this confirm that criminality is in the Genes? I have always had a sneaky suspicion that some people are born with a Gene that makes them susceptible to a life of crime. I know conditions are also to blame in a lot of cases.

[Busyman]

A British couple, a Doctor and his wife are sueing Social Services because the two children that they adopted, or were given, have ended up in prison. Does this confirm that criminality is in the Genes?

Of course not.

[Snee]

I guess it is in the genes to some extent.

I reckon people who tend to be aggressive more often choose a life of crime, and since being aggressive is in part tied to testosterone, and a higher testosterone-production is something you may inherit, you can be born with a statistically larger chance of ending up leading a life of crime.

But the same people might just as well become athletes or something else that involves being aggressive and/or competitive. To become a criminal you still have to be in a situation where negative behavior is rewarded or necessary.

So while some may have an easier time becoming criminals it's still something that ultimately depends on their society/environment.

[Rat Faced]

No.

It confirms that either the Dr and his wife were 'too busy' to teach their kids the difference between right and wrong, or the kids became involved in a bad crowd and subdued to peer pressure or similar.

I bet it was the former...

[vidcc]

I think all human actions/reactions can be attributed back to instinct and genetic make-up. The question shouldn't be "do we have a crime gene?" as crime is something we decide is or should be illegal.

As Snny said our genes make us more liable to be aggressive etc. but it is how we manifest that aggression into what society considers a criminal act that makes one a criminal.

So I say are genetic make-up does have a definite effect on our behaviour but fortunately we have brains that can mostly control those urges.

Of course these adoptive parents have no case as a genetic fault because how would the social services know. Plus we don't have the facts of the story.
How old were the children at time of adoption and did they have a criminal past that social services didn't disclose?

[bigboab]

I think all human actions/reactions can be attributed back to instinct and genetic make-up. The question shouldn't be "do we have a crime gene?" as crime is something we decide is or should be illegal.

As Snny said our genes make us more liable to be aggressive etc. but it is how we manifest that aggression into what society considers a criminal act that makes one a criminal.

So I say are genetic make-up does have a definite effect on our behaviour but fortunately we have brains that can mostly control those urges.

Of course these adoptive parents have no case as a genetic fault because how would the social services know. Plus we don't have the facts of the story.
How old were the children at time of adoption and did they have a criminal past that social services didn't disclose?

I dont know the full facts as it was related to me by my wife who was watching the news. So until I see the papers it might be 'Chinese Whispers' I heard some of it. guess what I was doing.

I can say that one of my brothers was a 'wrong un'. sady he died fairly young. My sister adopted his son, age 6. His son turned out to be a 'wrong un' too. Yet all my sisters children turned out OK. Could be a coincidence. I dont know.

[micolithe]

No. Unless they develop a mental disorder like Attatchment Disorder or Schizophrenia, it's the fault of the main caregiver from age birth to three years old.

[MCHeshPants420]

No, doctors just make for bad parents.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4080424.stm

[Everose]

bigboab, if you find more info about this case, will you post it? Micolithe has a point about the first three years being crucial, as are the 9 months in the womb.

RF: I will see that bet and raise you 'natural parents', social services' knowledge of the children's history with the natural parents, and those five special words social services' are so famous for offering instead of full disclosure of the children's history. 'All they need is love.'

[hobbes]

No.

It confirms that either the Dr and his wife were 'too busy' to teach their kids the difference between right and wrong, or the kids became involved in a bad crowd and subdued to peer pressure or similar.

I bet it was the former...

How, exactly, does it confirm that? That is an extreme and ridiculous assumption.

Why does "right" and "wrong" even need to be taught?

It confirms that you have issues that seem to place labels on people with a certain job, without even knowing the individual. This is as offensive as stating that people who pick up the trash are lazy, stupid and abusive.

My Father was a doctor and he did more than teach, he lead by example.

Let us talk about real factors. Some people have bad role models, regardless their profession, and some kids just come out "defective".