Contemporarily, it’s a contentious issue whether crimes, such as robbery and terrorism, is nature or nurture. While both perspectives have solid arguments, I tend to believe that those societal factors overweigh the inherent ones.
On the one hand, the argument that outlaws are born evil is a compelling one. As for pedophiles and other sexual criminals, they are more likely to be abnormal from an early age. Besides, some scientific researches also find it hard to minimize juvenile delinquencies resulting from inborn viciousness, as children showed an early cruelty toward animals and peers, which means if not correctly tamed or educated, any individual may grow up as a relentless criminal.
Conversely, economic status, political environment and other societal surroundings which cannot determined by individuals may play a more substantial role in cultivating criminals. For instance, in the United States, the criminal rate of those poorer regions significantly higher than where celebrities and politicians’ accommodations. From an interview on a prostitute in Brooklinn downtown, she was faced with serious financial crisis resulted from domestic issues, thus had no choice but to sell her body, through which she got caught by drug addiction and overdosing. Additionally, in those underdeveloped countries where social stability is not guaranteed, it’s difficult for individuals to obtain qualified education and financially rewarding occupations, leading to potential commitment of stealing, fraud, etc.
In conclusion, while the arguments for crimes originated from inheritance are understandable, the vicious circulation of economy, politics, cultural environment and other societal elements might be more important in nurturing crimes.