I'm too sleepy to write much, but did want to say the nature/nurture debate always comes into play when people murder - even moreso when young children murder. The parents/caretakers rarely escape unscathed. Nurture is hugely, hugely important - we all know that. On the other hand, I hold the strong opinion that some of us come into this world severely broken and seemingly unreachable.
I personally tend to shy away from the deterministic pov (
nature) as well as the blame game pov (
nurture), though I do think both play a role wrt individual outcomes. The nature/nuture debate is, of course, as old as the hills (
just check out phrenology, for example), and still rages in psychology circles around the globe.
Even so, there does appear to be a trend toward the biopscyhosocial model of human behavior. Where bio involves physiological components, such as naturally occurring chemical imbalances (
i.e., hormones, diabetes, etc), non-naturally occurring chemical imbalances (
i.e., fetal alcohol syndrome, drug abuse), and genetics. Psychological refers to a person's psychological make up (
how do they perceive the world around them?). For example, traits such as intraversion (
self-validation) & extraversion (
other validation), belief systems, interests, etc. And social refers to the social environment within which a person finds themselves at any given time. Where social environment is quite succinctly described in Urie Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory (
i.e., immediate & extended family, school, community, and society at large).
With this in mind, I am of the contention that people are not born "
broken" nor are they "
blank slates" to be written upon by their parents. Rather, they can be predisposed to certain trajectories (
such as bipolar, schizophrenia, and even psychopathy, etc), and both their psychological makeup and the environment within which they may find themselves will play a role wrt to the final outcome. This, btw, is quite different from the somewhat black-white "
Nature v Nurture theories, bc the individual is not a passive player where things are "
done" to him via nature OR nuture, rather he is a necessary participant in the making of his world.
For example, let's say little Johnny engages in a behavior that is considered socially unacceptable by both his peers and the adults within his social circlebe that immediate family, school, and/or community. His social circle will react from their own world view within their particular culture. And, dep upon little Johnny's genetic makeup and psychological traits, he will desist the behavior, repeat it, or somewhere between. The results may bring more reaction or nothing at all. In turn, little Johnny may react to the response (or non-response) with more acting out, socially acceptable behavior, or something in between. And so on and so forth.
In effect, what you end up with is a social feedback loop, where we react to the reactions of society around us, who are reacting to our actions. Think butterfly effect or game theory. Both of which are based in chaos theory.
