Can You Call a 9-yo a Psychopath?

[Nova]

Don't know what you consider hard core, but violent *advertiser censored* most certainly CAN cause someone to behave in a certain way. Of course not everybody who watches it turns into a serial killer, THAT notion is absurd, but to the right person it certainly can lead to murder.

But the question is whether the same person would have found some other image that inspired his homicidal tendencies. Like a Disney cartoon or a Vanity Fair ad or a child he saw walking down the street. I think causality is very hard to prove in this area.

 

[crystalgenie]

After reading that, I would suggest that her actions were due to abuse, overdoses and a severe lack of bonding rather than simply bring born an evil psychopath. I'm not saying some children don't exhibit the symptoms, they very well could, but Mary Bell isn't the best example because of all the problems she had in her childhood.

imo.

I wasn't saying Mary Bell didn't have issues. I have close friends who have suffered horrible sexual molestation (by their biological) father, their mother worked as a prostitute at times and was horribly physically and mentally abusive. They were all abused from the time they remember until the egg donor finally got rid of him. They believe the egg donor knew they were all being raped and molested.

None of the 6 girls involved have turned out to be sexually, physically abusive towards their children or anyone else. They all suffer from PTSD however they are not psychopaths that have killed.

There was something else wrong with Mary Bell. That is the point I was making with it being nature not nurture.

All IMHO!

 

[crystalgenie]

But what if a parent intervene to show this child what they were doing wrong? Yes, a young child might not understand the ramifications. My own son, loved a kitten to death, literally, when he was 3 years old. He didn't understand what he was doing. No, he never thru a kitten against a wall, but the implications are still the same. He didn't 'understand' at that early age, his actions were wrong....period.

He is 11 now. He would never dream of hurting a helpless animal or human. Just yesterday he came in to tell me that a neighborhood boy was terrifying a momma bird and her babies. He KNEW it was wrong from what I taught him.

Nurture, not nature... MOO

I wasn't talking about 3 years old. I am talking about the age that they know right from wrong.

When a child is 3 and they lie about something is very different than at 8 years old. At 3 they do not know and 8 they do know.

 

[crystalgenie]

Twin, Adoption, and Family Studies
Caitlin M. Jones
Rochester Institute of Technology


Adoption studies are critical in examining the relationship that exists between adopted children and both their biological and adoptive parents because they assume to separate nature and nurture. Studies have been conducted that test for the criminal behavior of the adopted-away children, if their biological parents had also been involved with criminal activity. In Iowa, the first adoption study was conducted that looked at the genetics of criminal behavior. The researchers found that as compared to the control group, the adopted individuals, which were born to incarcerated female offenders, had a higher rate of criminal convictions as adults. Therefore this evidence supports the existence of a heritable component to antisocial or criminal behavior (Tehrani & Mednick, 2000). Another study in Sweden also showed that if a biological background existed for criminality, then there was an increased risk of criminal behavior in the adopted children. In Denmark, one of the largest studies of adopted children was conducted and found similar results to the previous studies. The defining feature of the Denmark study was that the researchers found a biological component for criminal acts against property, but not for violent crimes (Joseph, 2001). Children whose biological fathers had been convicted of property crimes were more likely to engage in similar behavior, when compared to those biological fathers who had been convicted of violent crimes. According to an article by Jay Joseph (2001), who studied all of the minor and major adoption studies, the majority of researchers have found and agreed upon the non-significance of genes in violent crime. This reestablishes the findings from the studies mentioned already in that there may be a genetic component to antisocial behavior or that genes influence criminal behavior, but specifically for property offenses.

This article is an exceptional read on "nature vs. nurture." I did a research paper for psychology on nature vs. nurture. It was about twins separated at birth.

One set of twins were particularly interesting (their names escapes me at the moment) because they were separated and adopted out at birth. The families that adopted them were average families, neither family had a criminal history.

The twins ended up with almost mirroring criminal histories and both ended up on death row. They never met and were imprisoned on opposite sides of the country.

This started my fascination with nature vs. nurture.

 

[the seeker]

But the question is whether the same person would have found some other image that inspired his homicidal tendencies. Like a Disney cartoon or a Vanity Fair ad or a child he saw walking down the street. I think causality is very hard to prove in this area.

Most definitely. Causation is impossible to prove, especially since you can't take the criminals word for it.

 

[the seeker]

Twin, Adoption, and Family Studies
Caitlin M. Jones
Rochester Institute of Technology


Adoption studies are critical in examining the relationship that exists between adopted children and both their biological and adoptive parents because they assume to separate nature and nurture. Studies have been conducted that test for the criminal behavior of the adopted-away children, if their biological parents had also been involved with criminal activity. In Iowa, the first adoption study was conducted that looked at the genetics of criminal behavior. The researchers found that as compared to the control group, the adopted individuals, which were born to incarcerated female offenders, had a higher rate of criminal convictions as adults. Therefore this evidence supports the existence of a heritable component to antisocial or criminal behavior (Tehrani & Mednick, 2000). Another study in Sweden also showed that if a biological background existed for criminality, then there was an increased risk of criminal behavior in the adopted children. In Denmark, one of the largest studies of adopted children was conducted and found similar results to the previous studies. The defining feature of the Denmark study was that the researchers found a biological component for criminal acts against property, but not for violent crimes (Joseph, 2001). Children whose biological fathers had been convicted of property crimes were more likely to engage in similar behavior, when compared to those biological fathers who had been convicted of violent crimes. According to an article by Jay Joseph (2001), who studied all of the minor and major adoption studies, the majority of researchers have found and agreed upon the non-significance of genes in violent crime. This reestablishes the findings from the studies mentioned already in that there may be a genetic component to antisocial behavior or that genes influence criminal behavior, but specifically for property offenses.

This article is an exceptional read on "nature vs. nurture." I did a research paper for psychology on nature vs. nurture. It was about twins separated at birth.

One set of twins were particularly interesting (their names escapes me at the moment) because they were separated and adopted out at birth. The families that adopted them were average families, neither family had a criminal history.

The twins ended up with almost mirroring criminal histories and both ended up on death row. They never met and were imprisoned on opposite sides of the country.

This started my fascination with nature vs. nurture.

Good post. When it comes to the age old question of nature vs nurture, I think not one of those is soley the key. Obviously if Mary Bell had a decent homelife she may have not committed the crimes on the other hand if she wasn't predispositioned to violent crime, her homelife wouldn't have resulted in such behavior. I think it all boils down to predisposition to crime (nature) coupled with a certain environment. Both nature and nurture play a part.