INTRODUCTION
The question whether criminals are born or made has long occupied the minds of philosophers, criminologists, psychologists, and legal scholars. Why does one person choose a path of violence, theft, or fraud while another, facing the same hardships and challenges, chooses not to? As societies grew, the search for the answer has only grown stronger, giving rise to one of the most debatable questions in the study of crime: are criminals born with criminal tendencies, or are they shaped by the circumstances and experiences of their lives?
For a long time, many scholars believed that criminal behaviour was largely determined by biology. The idea was simple: some people are simply born with the traits that make them more likely to commit crimes than the rest. Today, most experts agree that there is no single factor that turns a person into a criminal. Instead, criminal behaviour is often shaped by a combination of biological tendencies and personal experiences.
The criminal justice system reflects this understanding. Factors such as mental illness, family instability, poverty, lack of educational opportunities, and other social challenges can influence person’s choices and actions. As a result, modern legal systems often look beyond the crime itself and consider the circumstances of the offender when determining their responsibility and punishment. This article explores the major theories that have shaped the nature-versus-nurture debate and examines how the law has responded to this enduring question.
THE ARGUMENT THAT CRIMINALS ARE BORN
The idea that criminals are born rather than made is often referred to as the biological theory of crime, suggesting that certain individuals may possess the characteristics which makes them more likely to engage in criminal activities. According to this view, criminality is not merely a result of poor choices or social conditions but may be linked to factors present from birth.
One of the earliest and most influential supporters of the idea that criminals are born rather than made was Cesare Lombroso, he was an Italian criminologist often referred to as the “Father of Criminology.” In the late nineteenth century, Lombroso challenged the prevailing belief that crime was solely done on a person’s free choice.[1] He argued that some individuals were born with a natural tendency towards criminal behaviour and could be identified through certain physical characteristics. According to his theory, these people were evolutionary throwbacks who possessed primitive traits which made them more likely to engage in criminal acts.
Although Lombroso’s ideas attracted considerable attention during his time, modern biological theories have moved far beyond his ideas. Researchers have explored the role of specific genes, including the Monoamine Oxidase A (MAOA) gene, which has been linked to aggressive behaviour under certain environmental conditions.[2] Neuroscience has further contributed to this debate. Studies have shown that abnormalities in areas of the brain responsible for decision-making and emotional regulation may increase the likelihood of antisocial behaviour. Such findings suggest that biological factors can influence behaviour in ways that may increase the risk of criminal conduct. However, modern legal systems maintain that biological tendencies alone cannot excuse criminal conduct. Criminal liability generally requires voluntary action and a guilty mind (mens rea), regardless of genetic predispositions.
THE ARGUMENT THAT CRIMINALS ARE MADE
Another perspective on the topic can be suggested. In this case, the assumption is made that criminal behavior is not a feature of any person. On the contrary, it is a certain feature acquired in the process of growing up. The environment where one grows up, one’s family, childhood experiences, friends, type of education, financial situation, and exposure to violence, among others, may influence a person’s inclination toward committing a crime. From this point, criminal behavior does not result from biological features. Rather, it is developed under the impact of environmental conditions during the whole period of one’s life. Such behavior appears to be a result of the interaction with different people and situations. Therefore, in case when people find themselves in specific situations, they become inclined to commit crimes due to their negative influences.
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
This theory was developed by Edwin Sutherland. He said that people learn to do crime by hanging out with others who do it. It is also called the Differential Association theory. Basically, if you are around people who think crime is okay and do it often, you are more likely to do it. This happens because people learn from each other. When people are around others who do crime, they get used to it. Might start doing it themselves.[3]
STRAIN THEORY
According to Robert K Merton’s theory, crime results from individuals seeking to achieve their goals through illegitimate means. People are unable to meet their demands legally due to certain limitations. Such issues make people do anything at any moment. In his theory, the concept is based on the idea of doing socially acceptable things. However, there are situations where people cannot do such things legally. For this reason, they are forced to undertake illegal actions.[4]
SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION THEORY
The social disorganization theory is the one used to establish the correlation between high crime rates and the ecological conditions within the neighborhood. It indicates that deviant behavior thrives in a community where there are no strong social bonds and there is also minimal social control.[5]
JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
Courts in various jurisdictions have increasingly acknowledged the effects of social and psychological factors on criminal behavior. In Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court of India has laid down the principle that while awarding punishment, one must take into account not only the offense but also the offender.[6]
In like manner, in the case of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, despite it not being a criminal case, the Indian Supreme Court interpreted Article 21 of the Constitution in terms of the dignity and humanity of each and every person.[7] This has affected how rehabilitation is understood in criminal justice.
The court in Mithu v State of Punjab did not uphold mandatory death penalties, recognizing the need to consider individual circumstances before punishing an offender.[8] Such rulings have shown that the court is more than willing to look past the action and consider the social and personal circumstances behind the crime.
THE MODERN LEGAL POSITION: A COMBINATION OF NATURE AND NURTURE
Modern criminologists deny the idea that criminal behavior is either fully inherent or solely influenced by upbringing. There are many other aspects too. The first one is the Bio-Social Theory. The theory states that some biological factors increase the likelihood of a person committing a crime. However, it is only the environmental component that decides whether the individual becomes a criminal. For example, an individual having a natural disposition to be aggressive because of his or her genes is not guaranteed to be a criminal. The next proof for this statement is the increasing popularity of rehabilitation programs and restorative justice.
CONCLUSION
There will never be a definite answer to whether criminals are born or made since the early biological determinist theory, as well as the idea that criminals were made through nothing but their environment, has been debunked since there has never been enough proof supporting such theories. Contemporary criminologists and legal scholars know that criminal behaviour is affected by genetic, psychological, and environmental elements.
Law, while recognizing the concept of personal responsibility for crime, also considers all the factors that influence human behaviour. It is impossible to say that criminals are either born or made since crimes result from the combination of both nature and nurture. Understanding how nature and nurture work with each other plays a big part in effective policy making regarding criminal sentencing and rehabilitation programs.
Author(s) Name: Shubhangi Jhunjhunwala (Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut)
References:
[1] Cesare Lombroso, Criminal Man (Mary Gibson and Nicole Hahn Rafter tr, Duke University Press 2006)
[2] Deborah W Denno, ‘Courts’ Increasing Consideration of Behavioral Genetics Evidence in Criminal Cases: Results of a Longitudinal Study’ (2011) 967 Michigan State Law Review <https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/709/> accessed 14 July 2026
[3] Edwin H Sutherland, Principles of Criminology (4th edn, JB Lippincott 1947)
[4] Robert K Merton, ‘Social Structure and Anomie’ (1938) 3 American Sociological Review 672 <https://www.jstor.org/stable/2084686> accessed 15 July 2026
[5] Clifford R Shaw and Henry D McKay, Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas (University of Chicago Press 1942)
[6] Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
[7] Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
[8] Mithu v State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277