Historically, one of the most controversial debates in the study of human development revolves around whether or not development is largely determined by heredity (genes) or environment.
Although not necessarily identified as the nature-nurture debate, this controversy often appears in legal cases, particularly in those that involve violent crime. Assume that you are sitting on a jury in which a defendant is being tried for murder.
The prosecutor describes a scenario in which the defendant clearly planned out the crime, went to great lengths to conceal the crime, and showed no remorse for his actions. You also hear lengthy testimony about the defendant's history, which includes domestic violence, battery, drug offenses, and expulsion from high school for beating up two younger students for the purpose of stealing money and cell phones.
The defense attorney agrees that her client committed the crime but argues that mental illness and a childhood history of abuse and neglect contributed to severe emotional problems. In addition, his biological father was in and out of prison for violent crimes, leaving his mother alone with three children.
The family lived in extreme poverty and, at times, they were homeless. Accordingly, her client should not be found guilty of murder, as his behavior was outside of his control.
Based on the information presented above, what information seems to support the role of nature? How about nurture? Which argument do you believe best fits the scenario?
Assume that multiple experts testify that the defendant suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD) and schizophrenia.
Would that change your view of his guilt or innocence? Why or why not?